The plaintiff appeals from orders sustaining "with leave to amend denied" demurrers to the declarations in both actions. Both declarations are in three counts. The demurrers were properly sustained. The accounts for abuse of criminal process fail to allege that the defendants either directed the criminal process or had control or influence over those in charge of the prosecution. See Wood v. Graves, 144 Mass. 365 , 367, 368-369; McLean v. Naumkeag Trust Co. 268 Mass. 437 , 439. The counts, characterized by the plaintiff in his briefs as being for "extortion" and "coercion and duress," do not state facts supporting a cause of action. The allegations in all the counts "are but generalizations and conclusions which do not sufficiently inform the defendants of the facts so that they might know what they would be called upon to meet." Lloyd v. Howes, 350 Mass. 19 , 21, and cases cited. The refusal to grant leave to amend was within the discretion of the judge. Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co. 303 Mass. 53 , 56. Foster v. Shubert Holding Co. 316 Mass. 470 , 477. Desmond v. Boston Elev. Ry. 319 Mass. 13 , 16. Lloyd v. Howes, supra, at 21, and cases cited. No abuse of discretion has been shown. See Bartley v. Phillips, 317 Mass. 35 , 41-44. The orders sustaining the demurrers in both cases are affirmed.
[Note 1] The partners in the law firm of Choate, Hall & Stewart of Boston.
[Note 2] William J. Leventhal vs. American Discount Corporation & others.
The Greens seek to register Chelsea land (the locus) lying southeast of a parcel (parcel A) previously registered by them. Certain maps referred to in the Land Court judge's decision indicate that a way known as Gillooly Road runs through the locus and parcel A at and near the boundary. The respondents, including owners of parcels on Gillooly Road southwest of the locus, assert an easement over that road within the locus. The Land Court judge in his decision found that, on the locus and parcel A, Gillooly Road is an ungraded, hilly piece of land covered with grass, "never . . . wrought on the ground," impassable for vehicles, and difficult to use on foot. He concluded that the respondents had no easement by grant or by prescription over the locus. Upon the limited review open on appeal, his findings and decision are conclusive in the absence of error of law apparent on the record. See Harrington v. Anderson, 316 Mass. 187 , 191-193.
No such error appears. A broader review by a bill of exceptions has not been sought. The respondents, as appellants, would have greatly assisted this court by including in their brief an informative sketch map of the area, based upon the exhibits, as required by S. J. C. Rule 1:15 (5), 351 Mass. 740 .