New Britain herald., 1927-11-03
LAWYERS IN CLASH
 DURING ARGUMENTS ON JUNK YARD WAR
Continued from First Page)

Continued from First Page)
 He IS a man Of high caibrc ant character and stands in an cminen
 position in his profession
 Grcenstcin had addressed court for I0 minutes before adjournment yesterday afternoon and he reopeneC his argument today. He argued tha the changing character Of d neigh. bOrhCod prevails. and in the case O. inc locality of Willow and Putnam streets the change has been iron business 10 residential This is proved by the fact that the struc. lures recently built are all resi-. d"ncos while the only new business is that ot Kotkin.
 Attorney Grecnstein cited cases ir law 10 support contentious that ( plea of necessity or profitableness cannot he offered as an excuse tot continuing nuisance, and that q respondent cannot escape liability by submitting there are other nuisances of like nature in the locality. He reminded the court that the junk dealers who testified yesterday have themselves moved out Of the dis lrict.
 The Wclllns junkyard was Charac- t"riH"d as "bootleg," not in the sense that liquor Is sold there but because 1t was smuggled in after zoning was
 
 tiou was directed 10 the fact that the City of New Britain has already in stituted proceedings to abatc the nuisanc" by injunctivc measures. Cooperation Counsel Argues
 Corporation Counsel John II. kirkham whose interest in the case was in defense of the board of ad- iustment's action ill dismissng the appeal or rcmonStrantS argued Zon- ing law to support his claim that tho board was within it's rights. The plaintiff had alleged that the board exceeded its powers in considering installation of a metal shearing ma chine to be q proper extension of a non conforming usc. He submitted that continuance upon contiguous portions of the lot is proper and within the law.
 Tt was never intended that d bus inoss should b" required 10 stagnate and that d man might not be privileged to take advantage Of mod = crn appliances. IL would be absurd 10 say: You may stay here, MT, Businessman, even though you are 2oncd for residential purposes: but you must continue 10 do things as you have always done thcm, he submitted in argument. With refer cncc to the Wcllins case, he explain cd that Wcllins was authorized to place a gasoline filling station on the premises. but that he later open ed iunked car business and it was with reference 10 the latter portion of the business that the city seeks to Cnioin him.
 Attorney Israel Nair, who was as sociatcd with Attorney Alcorn. de- nied the allegation that building was placed on the premises and q permit secured attorward. citing the testimony of Building Inspector A. N Rutherford that the structure even now is not completed.
 There was no extension of use be- yond the portion of the street originally fenced in for junkyard purposes and this is a proper exten- sion. he claimed. He reminded the court that stephen Dudack, one Of those claimed 10 be most prcjudiced against the kotkin yard, had given it a clear bill of health as far as filth is concerned and had pronounced il better than the adjoining yard. The board fence instead Of being an eye sore is a benefit to the district since it hides the junk from view. it was Contended.
 Attorney Nair agreed that many persons have moved out Of the dis trict. T once lived there myself, but moved out in 'hc course of events but where I am now, in an entirely different section, the trolleys and trucks awaken mo much earlier than the plaintiffs claim they are awak- cned,' he declared,
 kotl>in Long in Business
 Attorney Alcorn called attention 10 the fact that kotkin was in business two years prior 10 the enactment Of zoning. that he had purchased and set up his business in pursuance to a legal right. and that no subsequent ordinance could deprive him of that right. Neubauer, he pointed out. pur- chased the building nearest the junk yard in full knowledge of ifs exist anCe. and others built nearby know ing that the yards were there and so nsed.
 'Now they want Kotkin out Of there and they are proceeding to- ward that end through the avcnue of inc court and with the assistance of Some New Britain statesmen. one Of " "hom was on the witness stand yes 'orday."
 Tn" attorney rccited the evidence Of realty experts that New Britain is 0N"rhuiIt and declared against any court order that would require the ! K No'kin. lot 10 become vacant and us- ! lhlc only for residences where there !, IF" already too many Of them in tho ! ,jty. ,
 The evidence Of Dr. pullen that he Shcaring machine makes less | 'oIsc than 9 large truck in low gear. | md that of Building Inspector Ruth ! 'rIord that it sounded untitled in tho , ireenstein home just across the | street. were stressed
 Argument was made That a reap ng machine is not considered an cx- enSlon of business formerly done 'y hand, neither is tractor an ex- ension of horse drawn blowing operation. and it was submitted that i mechanical shears in junkyard $ Tn the same category.
 Ix. IL,