Petition dismissed. Ordered that copy of this rescript be transmitted to the clerk of the Superior Court for the county of Middlesex, where the original case of Commonwealth vs. Samuel Glick is pending. According to the certificate of the judge the petitioner did not give notice to the Commonwealth as required by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 278, Section 31, and such notice has not been waived. Spofford v. Loveland, 130 Mass. 6. Day, petitioner, 234 Mass. 576. Day v. McClellan, 236 Mass. 330, 332. Samuel v. Page-Storm Drop Forge Co. 243 Mass. 133, 136. Glick, petitioner, 299 Mass. 255, 257.

Petition dismissed. The petition does not disclose that a substantial question for determination by this court would be presented if leave to appeal should be granted. Lovell v. Lovell, 276 Mass. 10, 11-12. We do not decide whether there was "accident or mistake" within the meaning of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 215, Section 15.

Exceptions overruled. There is no reason to doubt the truth of the statement of the trial judge with respect to the improper letter sent to him by the attorneys for the defendant that "the letter referred to in no way affected the decision in the case, its contents being given no consideration by the judge and the matter referred to in the letter not entering into the ground of the decision." In these circumstances no prejudice to the plaintiff is shown, and there was no abuse of discretion or other error of law in refusing to grant a new trial. See Crosby v. Blanchard, 7 Allen 385, 387; Newman v. Newman, 211 Mass. 508, 509; Manning v. Woodlawn Cemetery Corp. 245 Mass. 250, 252-253; Jameson v. Hayes, 250 Mass. 302, 308; Nicoli v. Berglund, 293 Mass. 426, 430-431. Munde v. Lambie, 125 Mass. 367, and cases therein cited, relied on by the plaintiff, are distinguishable.

Exceptions overruled. The verdict for the defendant was directed rightly. The evidence did not warrant a finding that negligence of the defendant was a cause of injuries

Page 614

sustained by the plaintiff. On the evidence in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff it is wholly conjectural whether fault of the defendant caused or contributed to such injuries. Jabbour v. Central Construction Co. 238 Mass. 453. Nager v. Reid, 240 Mass. 211. Goetze v. Dominick, 246 Mass. 310. Baker v. Davis, 299 Mass. 345. The case is distinguishable from Tenney v. Reed, 262 Mass. 335, Hirrel v. Lacey, 274 Mass. 431, St. Pierre v. Hathaway Baking Co. 296 Mass. 455, Jette v. Longpre, 297 Mass. 264, relied on by the plaintiff.