Decree affirmed. The reviewing board adopted the findings and decision of the single member awarding compensation to the employee, including a finding that the employee suffered injury "in the course of her employment by reason of the dusty conditions prevailing in her employment in the spring of 1958; [and] that . . . a probable latent tuberculosis became exacerbated or activated." We cannot say that the board's conclusion was not warranted by the somewhat confused and conflicting evidence or that it was insufficiently supported by adequately explicit medical testimony from doctors who in fact attended the employee. There was no error in the board's denial of a motion to strike certain medical testimony. Costs and expenses of this appeal shall be allowed by the single justice.
Decrees affirmed. By decree in the Probate Court, a husband was committed to jail for contempt by reason of his failure to pay $50 of arrears in payments directed by an earlier decree of separate support. He was released from jail upon making payment. Assuming (without deciding) that this matter relating to a civil contempt is not moot (see Kenworthy & Taylor, Inc. v. State Examrs. of Electricians, 320 Mass. 451 , 453-454; Garabedian v. Commonwealth, 336 Mass. 119 , 120), the report of material facts reveals no error. Upon a petition in equity, the husband by decree was directed to return to the wife certain rings or the value thereof, and to pay to her one half of the cash wedding gifts to the couple, who separated less than two months after their marriage. The evidence is conflicting and confused. No stenographer was present on one day of trial, and the parties then agreed to proceed despite the absence of a stenographer. The evidence thus is not all before us. Upon this record, we cannot say that the probate judge was not justified in his findings (a) as to the amount of the cash gifts, and (b) that the husband had "obtained possession of . . . [the] rings."
Interlocutory and final decrees affirmed. The plaintiff, a creditor of the defendant Darker, sought to reach and apply surplus funds in the hands of the defendant bank following a foreclosure sale by the bank of Darker's equity of redemption. The bank, in its answer by way of counterclaim, disclaimed any interest in the surplus, alleged that nine attaching creditors of Darker had, as a result of the foreclosure sale, acquired liens on the fund, and asked that they be ordered to interplead. The judge so ordered.
A demurrer to the counterclaim by the appellant, one of the nine attaching creditors, who had brought an independent bill to reach and apply the same fund, was overruled. In the interpleader a final decree was entered disposing of the fund to counsel and a creditor other than the appellant, whose independent bill to reach and apply was thereupon dismissed. The case is before us solely on the pleadings and the decrees. The demurrer alone has been argued. There was no error. The bank's counterclaim sufficiently averred that two or more parties were asserting a right to the funds in its hands. LaCentra v. Jackson, 245 Mass. 14 , 18. Antonellis v. Weinstein, 258 Mass. 323 , 325. The case falls within the accepted rule as to interpleader stated in Gonia v. O'Brien, 223 Mass. 177 , 179.