The judge of the Land Court on a petition under G. L. c. 240, Section 14A, and c. 185, Section 1 (j 1/2), upheld the validity of an amendment to the zoning by-law of Agawam whereby the locus was reclassified from an agricultural district to a business A district. The petitioners appeal. There was no error. Neither party offered testimony but stipulated certain facts. The judge concluded that there was no failure to comply with notice requirements, that there was insufficient proof that the proposed change constituted spot zoning (Morgan v. Banas, 331 Mass. 694, Cohen v. Lynn, 333 Mass. 699) and, finally, that the imperfect reference in the warrant to the locus (as being in an agricultural district whereas it was in fact mainly in an agricultural district but in part in a residential A-2 district) was not, in the circumstances, fatal to the validity of the vote adopting the amendment. We see no reason to disturb the judge's decision.

Decision affirmed.

White in 1965 obtained a divorce from Mrs. White and promptly remarried. In 1964, he entered into a stipulation for the support of their minor children. In 1967 Mrs. White lost a well compensated position because her corporate employer moved to New Jersey and she reasonably wished to remain in Massachusetts. She is now much less well paid in another position. On January 21, 1969, the probate judge on her petition increased the allowance for the two children then still minors, by a decree later properly modified to correct an inadvertent error. The evidence is not before us but the material facts reported by the probate judge fully justify his conclusions, including his decision concerning the payments necessary to keep the children in a private school, which both parents wished them to attend. See Jasper v. Jasper, 333 Mass. 223, 227. White's appeal from the modification decree is without merit and frivolous.

Page 813

Costs and expenses in this court and the Probate Court are to be allowed in the discretion of that court, but Mrs. White, in any event, is to have double costs of appeal. See Wilde v. Wilde, 353 Mass. 750.

Decree affirmed.