Decree affirmed. A wife appeals from adverse decrees of the Probate Court upon two petitions, one by her for separate support, alleging that she is livingapart from her husband for justifiable cause and specifying cruel and abusive treatment; the other by the husband alleging that she has deserted him and that he is living apart from her for justifiable cause. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 209, Section 32. No helpful contribution to our jurisprudence would come from a recital of the material facts found by the judge. We need only state that such facts did not compel ultimate findings in favor of the wife in the two cases.
Exceptions overruled. This is an action at law to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while being driven home from his place of employment by the defendant, his employer. The transportation was one of the terms of his employment. The defendant was insured under the workmen's compensation act (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 152), and the plaintiff did not reserve under Section 24, as amended, of the act any rights at common law. Caira v. Caira, 296 Mass. 448 , 449. DeStefano v. Alpha Lunch Co. of Boston, 308 Mass. 38 , 40. Murphy v. Miettinen, 317 Mass. 633 . Adiletto v. Brockton Cut Sole Corp. 322 Mass. 110 , 113. Pell v. New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. 325 Mass. 239 , 241.
Petition for abatement dismissed. This is an appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board denying exemption from a tax assessed on the real estate of the petitioner taxpayer in Great Barrington for the year 1948. The board found that the taxpayer had "not maintained the burden of showing that it comes within the provisions of the exemption statute, G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 59, Section 5, Third," relating to charitable and scientific institutions. We considered an appeal by the petitioner from a decision by the board relating to the assessment of the 1946 tax on the same property in American Institute for Economic Research v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 324 Mass. 509 . In that case we said that on the evidence "the board might properly conclude that the use of the property in question is incidental to the conduct of an enterprise maintained for the benefit of a few individuals rather than as a charity for the public" (page 513). In the instant case the evidence was substantially the same and it was stipulated that "there was no change in the activities or the work carried on by the institute
from the time of its incorporation up to the time of the hearing." What was said in our previous decision, as above quoted, is applicable here. The board, in dealing with the petitioner's numerous requests for rulings, appears to have instructed itself correctly as to the law.