Decree affirmed. The petitioner seeks an appointment as guardian, with custody, of Wayne Clark Lovell born March 3, 1941, the adopted child of Clarence Harrison Stringer and Nina Eugenia Stringer, both of Shedd, Oregon. Nina is the natural mother of the child. The petition alleges that the parents are not "fit and suitable persons" for such custody. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 201, Section 5. Before hearing the judge appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the minor. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 215, Section 56A. After hearing the judge entered a decree which recites, ". . . it appearing that said minor is under the age of fourteen years, and that the parents cannot be found to be unfit: It is decreed that said Nina Eugenia Stringer of Shedd, Oregon, be appointed guardian of the person and the estate of said minor . . . ." The case comes here upon an appeal from this decree by the guardian ad litem. Besides the finding of facts in the decree, the judge made a report of the material facts. The evidence is not reported. In the absence of a report of the evidence the findings of the judge must be accepted as true. Richards v. Forrest, 278 Mass. 547, 551-552. Birnbaum v. Pamoukis, 301 Mass. 559, 562. It is unnecessary to recite the facts on which the judge's conclusions are based. His findings are sufficient to support the decree. Page v. Page, 329 Mass. 764. The decree was entered in accordance with the principles of law declared in Richards v. Forrest, 278 Mass. 547.

Order denying jury issues affirmed. Order denying continuance affirmed. One of these appeals is from an order of a judge of the Probate Court denying jury issues in connection with the probate of the will of Antonio Deluca. The only issue seriously urged was undue influence on the part of Raymond G. Mowat and his wife, Elsie P. Mowat, who were the only beneficiaries under said will. This issue was submitted to the judge upon oral statements of counsel for the proponent and counsel for the contestant, together with written statements of certain persons reciting evidence which counsel for the contestant expected them to give in the event of a jury trial. All these statements appear in the record. Viewing the whole record and giving the decision of the judge the weight to which it is entitled, we think that the expected evidence did not require the framing of an issue upon undue influence. Fuller v. Sylvia, 240 Mass. 49. Hannon v. Gorman, 296 Mass. 437. See Laws v. Aschenbeck, 326 Mass. 7. The other appeal was from an order of the judge

Page 712

denying a motion for a continuance of the hearing on the motion to frame jury issues until after a hearing upon a petition for discovery had been had. Little citation of authority is necessary to demonstrate that a motion for a continuance rests entirely within the discretion of the judge unless abuse of discretion is shown. No abuse of discretion is shown here. Noble v. Mead-Morrison Manuf. Co. 237 Mass. 5, 16.