Home AGNES A. MCCAULEY, petitioner to establish the truth of exceptions in the case of John E. Savage, Jr., administrator, vs. Agnes A. McCauley.

304 Mass. 677

March 2, 1939

Petition dismissed. The appeals in the case of John E. Savage, Jr., administrator, vs. Agnes A. McCauley having been dismissed, no substantial question of law is sought to be raised under the bill of exceptions.

Home JAMA A. WHITE, petitioner to establish the truth of exceptions.

304 Mass. 677

October 4, 1939

Petition dismissed. A petition to establish the truth of exceptions must be denied when, "even if the truth of the exceptions were established, no question of law of such gravity as properly to call for consideration of the court would be presented." Commonwealth v. Vallarelli, 273 Mass. 240 , 247. The only exception set forth in the bill of exceptions annexed to the petition is an exception to the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Such a motion is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge, and his action in denying such a motion will not be reversed unless abuse of such discretion appears. Henry L. Sawyer Co. v. Boyajian, 298 Mass. 415 . Clearly no abuse of discretion would be shown even if the truth of the exceptions were established. Powers v. Bergman, 210 Mass. 346 . Henry L. Sawyer Co. v. Boyajian, 298 Mass. 415 . The bill of exceptions, therefore, fails to reveal any question of law calling for the consideration of the court, and the petition must be dismissed.

Home STEPHEN P. JOHNSON et als. vs. JOHN L. KEYES et al.

304 Mass. 677

October 6, 1939

Decrees affirmed. These are appeals from decrees of the Probate Court, in the matter of the alleged will of Nellie A. Keyes, late of Lowell, denying motions by the contestants for the framing of issues for trial by a jury. The argument in behalf of the contestants is now directed only to the issue of undue influence. Upon consideration of the statements of expected evidence -- which need not be recited -- in the light of the established

Page 678

principles of law governing the framing of such issues and review on appeal after action of the Probate Court on motions for the framing of such issues -- which have been frequently stated and need not be restated -- we conclude that there was no error in the denials of these motions.