Norwich bulletin., 1919-05-19
JURY FINDS FOR PARKER AGAINST B. F. MAHAN

At 3.20 o'clock Saturday afternoon the jury in the summary process case of Postmaster E. r. Mahan of New London, vs. Frank E. Parker, reported a verdict in favor of MT Parker. who operates the Crocker House at New London, from which Mir. Mahan was trying to eject him. Under the decis- ion MT. Parker may retain the pos session of the hotel for five years from April 1, 1915. at an annual rental of S10,000, with a privilege of five years additional at an annual rental of s12,000.
 Attorneys for Mir. Mahan will ap- peal the case.
 The Crocker House summary pro-
 cess case was resumed Saturday morning at 9.S0 o'clock. All the tes- timony was finished early in the week and Justice Max Boyer ordered the at ! ments Saturday morning. The case hinged on a lease which it was claimed had been executed be- l tween Mahan and Parker, but which 1 is not now in possession of Mir. Par ker, who claimed it had disappeared l from desk in a drawer where he had kept it.
 Attorney Gallup opened for the 1 plaintiff. Mfr. Gallup said that the
 whole question hinged on whether or not there WIS in existence lease from April 1, 1915. for a period of five years. He contentfed that Parker l cannot recall the conditions of such a tlease, only as to length of time and amount of rental
 He said that ill a matter involving 1 S110G00 for ten year contract he
 couldn't see why Parker should leave
 such a paper around without having i it recorded. He argued that if there had been such an important document l that he would have had it recorded immediately.
 He gives as his excuse that Mahan asked him to not to record it for a while, Such request would have had
 Ia tendency to hasten placing it on rec ord.
 Parker says he left the lease in his ldesk where many people had access to it. and why didn't he put it in a safe place? Because he had no such doc ument.
 It makes no difference what Man ager Richard Law told the witnesses about a lease. The facts must deter mine the matter. Law had used the lterm lease. but he never admitted that
 it was signed.
 i Attorney Geary in behalf of the de-
 fendant argued at considerable length
 going into much of the testimony and .d dealing particularly with the testi-
 mony and dealing particularly with
 the testimony of former Manager
 said: The change from New York tc
 New London air must have seriously
 impaired his memory.
 Law testified that after Mir. Par
 wcr had signed the lease he took it t. Mir. Mahan and has not seen it since What became of it? Any chances ithat it was destroyed? Mir. Mahar
 isn't careless. He brought into cour copies of leases drawn in 1911. Why has he preserved these and not the
 one drawn in i91or
 man. No criticism of him in his , failure to have the lease recorded car be too severe. but he confided in Ma han and in his manager Law. If the hotel was rotten as Is Mir Mahan's reason for wanting to ous Mir Parker, who is to blame, th' manager or the proprietor? Was Law , to have an increase in salary fo maintaining a. rotten hotel? MT. Pheian, the Boston man wh' :: arranged to take over the hotel iron l Mir. Parker testified that Mahan toll ! him that he wouldn't consent to it be l cause Parker had not done certail things which he had agreed to do. Nil , Phelan testified that he said that h would do those things and Mir. Ma . han said that ne would not consent | a transfer as he wanted Parker to q these things. MT. Phelan also sai
 that MT. Mahan insisted on havin
 Law retained as manager
 Attorney Avery made the concludin
 targument and Justice Boyer delivere d his charge at the opening of cuort a = . o'clock Saturday afternoon.