Decrees affirmed. The object of this bill seems to be to relieve the plaintiff from the conservatorship of Old Colony Trust Company placed over him by decree of the Probate Court in 1923. His remedy to accomplish this purpose is by application to the Probate Court under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 201, Section 18, as amended by St. 1934, c. 204, Section 2, and not by means of this plenary suit in this court. Various allegations of the bill as to relations between the trust company and The First National Bank of Boston and as to acts of the officers of the trust company, in so far as they may be designed to indicate that the present conservator should not continue as such, and if there is any substance in them, which we do not imply, would be proper for consideration by the Probate Court. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 201, Section 33, as amended by St. 1950, c. 420. If they are designed to set up causes of action independent of the discharge or removal of the conservator, they fail to disclose any cause of action in the plaintiff, and if they did, they would render the bill multifarious. It is unnecessary to catalogue all of the other difficulties with this bill. The demurrers were rightly sustained. The judge properly denied the plaintiff's motion to "bar the appearance" of certain counsel for one of the defendants.

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff is the mother of the defendant. On July 5, 1948, he was operating an automobile in which the plaintiff was riding as a guest. While the automobile was travelling at a speed not exceeding fifteen miles an hour and was crossing an intersection of streets it was struck by a fire truck and the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff excepted to the entry of a verdict for the defendant under leave reserved. To recover, the plaintiff had to prove that the defendant was grossly negligent. Dinardi v. Herook, 328 Mass. 572. Rosario v. Vasconcellos, ante, 170. Even if there was evidence that the defendant was negligent, we find no evidence that he was grossly negligent.

Exceptions overruled. This case is here upon the plaintiff's exceptions to the direction of a verdict for the defendant. It is an action of tort to recover consequential damages and for injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff, a business guest of the defendant. The evidence discloses that the minor plaintiff on June 12, 1949, hired a locker from the defendant and paid it for the privilege of swimming at a beach on the shore of Lake Quinsigamond, a great pond, in Worcester. After having had a swim she proceeded to walk out of the water to the shore of the lake. When she was within two feet of the edge of the shore and in about nine inches of water she stepped upon a piece of glass that was partially imbedded in the sandy bottom of the lake and injured her foot. There was no evidence as to how the piece of glass got where it was or how long it had been there. Likewise there was no evidence that the defendant had or should have had any knowledge

Page 710

of its presence. There was no error in directing a verdict for the defendant because the evidence failed to show any negligence on the part of the defendant. "Cases of this sort have been before this court so frequently that it would serve no useful purpose to restate the principles of law that apply." Mandigo v. Hamid Amusement Co. Inc. 317 Mass. 225, 226.