New Britain herald., 1930-01-09
made and spurned.

Attorney Gordon recalled 1nspec- tor Rutherford to the stand to rebut the statements of Miss Andrews con- corning the continued use of the business. He brought out that one of the duties of the inspector is to keep close watch on the uses 10 which conforming buildings are being put. The inspector saidkhe had been on the premises many times in the past few years. but saw no evidence of business being conducted.
 Abe Kolodney giving his occupa- ton as general sales manager Of the kolodney Hardware store, said he has charge of receiving and shipping. The last installment of merchandise was taken out of the Andrews store in 1927 on his order when losses were found to have resulted from unfavorable storage conditions. His brother Samuel, corroboratcd this testimony.
 Each side was allowed 10 minutes for a review of the evidence and Cl- tation of law. after which briefs were submitted for the consideration of the jrdge.
 Lindcr Reviews Case
 Clerk Thomas Linder was the first witness called to the stand yesterday. He summarized the case at the re- quest of Judge Jennings, telling Of an appeal to the board of adjustment from the ruling of the building in spector that Andrews could not ba stopped from reopening his business on the ground that the existing non- conforming use had not been aban- doned This was on July ). The board of adjustment, Lnder continued. met November 6, and by an affirmative vote of five members supported the inspector.
 Attorney Gordon had several cX- hibits introduced in evidence in this point. Included was q copy of his letter to Inspector Rutherford ask ing for a ruling on the legality of the store, the inspectors letter to the board of adjustment setting forth his reason for refusing to interfere with Andrews plan, the formal appeal to that board, six photogra phs of the premises in question and a copy of the zoning ordinance.
 An attempt by Judge kirkham to have evidence introduced to show that an offer of compromise had been spurncd by the neighbors was excluded by Judge Jennings on At torney Gordon's protest
 Clerk Linder testified that the Andrews plot contains a small store building. a roofed opening between that and an auxiliary structure. house and a barn. Speaking of the first Of these. Clerk Linder referred to it as a 'semi-shack used as a store"
 Calls store Objectionable
 Asked to describe the building next to the north, the witness term cd it very beautiful structure. II is the State Normal school. When he answered the next question by say ing the store is objectionable, At torney Nair objected on the claim that it is not relevant to the ques- ton Of whether abandonment has taken place. Judge Jennings admit ted tho answer as bearing on the allegation in the appeal which sets forth that use of the store will be detrimental to property values.
 The store was located on the zon- ing map in a residence A district, 50 feet from a business zone in which there are four business uses and d conforming gasoline filling sta | ton. according to the testimony of the witness. In reply to q question, he said almost the entire business zone at this point is owned by the kolodneys, there being but one lot owned by other parties.
 J. B. Comstock on stand The appellant. J. B. Comstoch. was next called to the stand. He is the advertising manager for r. X F. Corbin Co. and has owned the dwell- ing directly opposite the store since 1913. When he said he had purchas- ed from E. o. kilbourne, Judge Jennings smiled and remarked: Mir. kilbourne had some trouble too. I think I had a part of that" He had reference to kilbourne's successful | fight over period of three years | for permit to build gasoline fill | ing station opposite the entrance to Stanley Quarter park.
 MT. Comstock told of the purchase of Andrews store about 10 years ago. and described the business as a small general grocery and meat store with gasoline pumps in front. The pumps were removed five or six years ago, the store closed about five years ago, and the advertising sign of kolodney Brothers removed two years ago, the witness said. Just prior to July l, he | recalled, a truck took parts of i broken showcases and "a mighty scrubby lot of stuff out of the 1 building. For five years the witness | testified. he saw no one enter the | premises. The building line in the | district is 50 feet and the store which is the subject Of the protest is di- rcctly on the street line.
 | Attorney Nair, by questioning Mir. Comstock, brought out that the wit lI'so lo dNdS IT Ulll liS IlOlllC lul1i a. m. to noon, and from shortly before 1 o'clock until after 5:30 o'clock every day excepting Satur- day and Sunday. During those hours. 1 it was admitted, he had no oppor- 1 tunity to know whether the store was entered.
 Judge Jennings interrupted 10 ask whether the defense would attempt to show constructive occupancy un- der the terms of a lease or actual occupancy, and Attorney Nair an- | sWered both"
 1 Mr. Comstock answered Judge kirkham to the effect that he pur- chased his home before zoning went into effect. but said he received no
 price concession on account of the