A probate judge concluded upon ample evidence that Colopy was living apart from his wife for justifiable cause and awarded him custody of his five children. The Colopys lived from 1949 to 1962 as members of a center maintained by a religious group, dominated by its leader, whose "rights to act as a priest were taken from him." Originally, couples there "were allowed to live . . . something like normal married lives." Later all members "had to take a vow of chastity and celibacy" and of obedience. The five children were placed at an early age under the supervision of persons not their parents. The children and each of the parents thereafter lived in separate parts of the center. The children have no normal family life, slight contact with the outside world, and go to the center's school which has not been adequately investigated by public authorities. The wife, since 1962, adamantly has refused to join her husband in establishing their home outside the center. The judge correctly ruled that the primary consideration was the children's welfare and justifiably concluded that it would be best served by life with Colopy outside the center. General Laws (Ter. Ed.) c. 208, Section 30, and c. 209, Section 37, do not preclude awarding custody to Colopy, a college graduate and law student, who wishes to remove the children to another State to live near his father, a man of substance. On the evidence, the judge could properly find good cause for such a removal.
Decree affirmed with double costs to be awarded under G. L. c. 211, Section 10. The defendant has appealed from a final decree on a bill of complaint in which the plaintiff seeks an accounting for all compensation due him under an employment contract which he alleges was broken by the defendant. A master found that the defendant had repudiated the contract on December 9, 1961, while the plaintiff was complying with its terms. The master made a projection of the total commissions which the plaintiff would have earned had the contract proceeded to its completion. Following the filing of his report, a hearing was held by a judge on the restrictive issue of the plaintiff's earnings from December 9, 1961, through February 24, 1964, the date when obligations created in the contract would have ceased. The final decree reflected the amount due the plaintiff, giving effect to the projections of the master, diminished
by the findings of the judge, on the plaintiff's earnings after December 9, 1961, through February 24, 1964. There was no error. The decree had ample support in the findings of the master, supplemented by those of the judge on the restrictive issue. The master's computations of projected sales by the plaintiff on which he would have become entitled to commissions was proper. Barry v. New York Holding & Constr. Co. 226 Mass. 14 , 18-19. See Eastern Mass. St. Ry. v. Union St. Ry. 269 Mass. 329 , 334.