The decision as printed
Supreme Judicial Court · from CourtListener · released Oct 22, 1913 · 2 pages · 108 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗
79 V. ATHOL. WINTHROP Mass.] plaintiff wheel. The offered emery of the of the breaking cause in setting, due to defects its evidence to show that it was tending ” “ true, defendant offered The that it did run wobbled. so not but in was emery perfect the wheel tending evidence to show that and his the plaintiff that because running condition and it broke heavy allowed the workman, together, working fellow who were to it. way in as break to such a casting come the wheel against open It was of the parties. These were the contentions respective emery that to find the to the evidence jury conflicting such upon of the cause proximate and that this was the wheel was defective workman in of the fellow injury, negligent and the conduct that casting against come the wheel heavy the of the letting weight breaking. cause its degree contributed in some to of this case the defend- It follows under the circumstances that fifth denied rightly. ant’s was request overruled. Exceptions Winthrop of of vs. Inhabitants Athol. Inhabitants 21,1913. 22, October 1913. Worcester. October Braley, Courcy,- Rugg, J., Morton, Sheldon, De Present: C. & JJ. Judgment. Pauper. Review. whether, Upon petition ordinarily question of a a writ of it is a fact for review review, law, justice parties requires a and in the under the to the such a case granting judicial of a the writ is matter of discretion. party years against excepting him fails to have Where for three after a verdict an dies, expiration exceptions upon, judge passed trial and after the his and then the years exceptions judgment is entered on the of three more the are dismissed and verdict, judgment purely granting is a the of a to such writ of review review of matter discretion. against brought by expenses in- regard another for In to action one town an support pauper alleged a in the de- in of a to have had settlement curred the court, said, that, town, question this before which fendant it was had the been not, brought judgment in an clear that a for the defendant action it was it was support by same against expenses it the of the a third town for incurred for action, parties same pauper the was a bar to the because the were not not respective privity plaintiffs in the actions. the two and there was no between 2,1912, the by of filed on December Petition for a writ review by it the against obtained Winthrop judgment of to review a town 80 V. ATHOL. WINTHROP [216 4, of 1912, town Athol on November for in expenses incurred support Lydia the of one E. family alleged Daniels and her to paupers, have been action the in which judgment such was ob- 1, tained been having brought on February 1900. The facts in regard presentation to the and dismissal of the defendant’s bill of in exceptions such action are stated in the opinion. petition The for J., a writ of by review was Ratigan, heard who the made of following memorandum “In decision: the exercise a of sound I discretion find no good reason for to the granting petitioner a writ of I review. to give refuse all for requests rul- ings inconsistent with this or finding rendered hereby. immaterial ” petition The is dismissed. To this and to ruling the of refusal the to make of judge any the rulings the requested petitioner excepted. The case was submitted on briefs. Orcutt, H. W. petitioner. for the Anderson, J. A. Stiles & C. S. for the respondent. By fact, the Ordinarily court. it is question a of the decision upon discretion, of which in measure depends large judicial sound whether, law, justice under the all parties to concerned requires Simmons, the issuance of a writ of review. Co. Scituate Water v. Donovan, v. 167 Mass. 313. Stillman 170 Mass. 360. Welch v. Chase, 213 Mass. 519. upon The decision of the below based principle court was this error in application. and no of law is disclosed its Where plainly party exceptions passed failed to his excepting get upon an for them, at of years expiration three after the which time the filing died, years the and three more elapsed who heard case before judge for judgment the were dismissed and was entered the exceptions matter of discretion whether pure it a a review plaintiff, was Meehan, petitioner, See 208 Mass. 60. should be granted. on record law this is whether a only presented The of question defendant, writ, the petitioner of for the in favor this judgment by of Stoughton involving 'the town the against in an action it a Clearly bar to this action. the same was pauper settlement of same, not the nor were they The were parties privies. not. it was Shutesbury Hadley, v. 17 Mass. 432. 133 Hingham, Braintree v. 242. Mass. Exceptions overruled.