(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Report of the attorney general for the year ending .."

HEWP5V f HARRIS, 
840 MAIN STREET, 

WORCESTER, MASS. 



HENRY F. HARRia 
840 MAIN STREET, 

WORCESTER, MASS. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT .... .... No. 12. 



Commonfotalt^ of ^assat^sttts. 



REPORT 



ATTOENET- GENEEAL 



FOR THE I 



Year ending January 21, 1903. 



^r. 






BOSTON : 

WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS, 

18 Post Office Square. 

1903. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT . . . . 



No. 12. 



Commonto^alt^ d '^uBrnd^uBttt^. 



REPORT 



ATTOEISrET- QENEEAL 



Year ending January 21, 1903. 




BOSTON : 

WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS, 

18 Post Office Square. 

1903. 



C0mmonfo£alt]^ of p;assat^sdts. 



Office of the Attorney-General, 

Boston, Jan. 21, ]903. 

To the Honorable the President of the Senate. 

I have the honor to transmit herewith my report for the 
year ending this day. 



Very respectfully, 



HEEBEIiT PARKER, 

Attorney- General. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



PAfiB 

Foster, vii 

Appropriation and Expenditures, viii 

Cases attended to by this Office, ix 

Capital Cases, x 

The Court of Land Registration, xvii 

Jurors in Capital Cases, . . . xviii 

Collateral Inheritance Tax, xviii 

Fire MarshaPs Department of the District Police, . . . . xx 

Commitments to Insane Asylums, xxi 

Bertillon System, xxi 

Office of the Attorney-General, xxii 

Opinions, 1 

Informations at the Relation of the Treasurer, .... 81 
Informations at the Relation of the Commissioner of Corpora- 
tions, 85 

Informations at the Relation of the Civil Service Commissioners, 86 

Informations at the Relation of Private Persons, .... 86 

Grade Crossings, 87 

Corporate Applications for Dissolution, 102 

Corporations required without Suit to file Tax Returns, . . 104 

Corporations required without Suit to file Certificate of Condition, 106 

Collateral Inheritance Tax Cases, 110 

Public Charitable Trusts, 134 

Land-damage Cases arising from the Alteration of Grade Cross- 
ings, 136 

Suits conducted in Behalf of State Boards and Commissions, . 137 

Metropolitan Park Commission, 137 

Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board, .... 143 

Massachusetts Highway Commission, 153 

Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners 154 

Miscellaneous Cases from Above Commissions, . . . 154 
Cases arising under the Act limiting the Height of Buildings, 

in the Vicinity of the State House, 158 

State Board of Charity, 159 

Miscellaneous Cases, 161 

Corporation Tax Collections 174 

Miscellaneous Collections, 179 

Extradition and Interstate Rendition, 186 

Rules of Practice in Interstate Rendition, 190 



Commoitto^altlr oi l^assathxs^tts. 



OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, 
Rooms 225 and 226 State House. 



Attorney- General. 
HERBERT PARKER. 

Assistants. 
Ralph A. Stewart. 
Robert G. Dodge. 
Arthur W. DeGoosh. 
Frederick H. Nash. 
Frederic B. Greenhalge. 



Clerk. 
Louis H. Freese. 



viii ATTORNEY-GENEEAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 1903. 

Statement of Appropriation and Expenditures. 
Appropriation for 1902 $40,000 00 



Expemlib 



For law library, . 

For salaries of assistants, . 

For additional legal services. 

For clerk and stenographers. 

For office expenses, 

For court expenses,* 

Total expenditures, 
Costs collected. 

Net expenditure, 



$1,026 56 
16,408 33 
1,445 85 
4,220 70 
4,723 17 
4,435 60 

132,260 21 
817 15 

$31,443 06 



* Of this amount $817.15 has been collected as costs of suits and paid to the 
Treasurer of the Commonwealth. 



Ccmmnntn^altlj of glassatljusrfts. 



• Office of the Attorney-General, 

Boston, Jan. 21, 1903. 
To the General Court. 

In compliance with Eevised Laws, chapter 7, section 8, 
I submit my report for the year ending this day. 

The cases requiring the attention of the office during the 
year, to the number of 2,101, are tabulated below : — 

Bastardy complaints, [ 2 

Collateral inheritance tax cases 348 

Corporate collections made without suit, 295 

Corporation returns enforced without suit, 203 

Dissolutions of corporations, voluntary petitions for, ... 71 

Extradition and interstate rendition 60 

Grade crossings, petitions for abolition of, 135 

Height of buildings, limitation of, cases arising therefrom, . . 45 
Informations at the relation of the Civil Service Commissioners, . 1 
Informations at the relation of the Commissioner of Corporations, 26 
Informations at the relation of private persons, .... 4 
Informations at the relation of the Treasurer and Receiver-Gen- 
eral, 101 

Indictments for miu'der, 19 

Land-damage cases arising through the alteration of, grade cross- 
ings, 11 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the Harbor 

and Land Commissioners, 7 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land b}- the Massa- 
chusetts Highway Commission, 11 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the Metro- 
politan Park Commission, 214 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the Metro- 
politan Water and Sewerage Board, 210 

Miscellaneous cases arising from the work of the above-named 

commissions, .51 

Miscellaneous cases, 246 

Public charitable trusts, 28 

Settlement cases for support of insane paupers, .... 13 



X ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Capital Cases. 
Indictments for murder pending at the date of the last 
annual report have been disposed of as follows : — 

JoHX C. Best of Saugus, indicted for murder in Essex 
County, January, 1901, for the murder of George E. Bailey, 
at Saugus, Oct. 8, 1900. On Jan. 30, 1901, he was 
arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. ^ James H. Sisk and 
Nathan D. A. Clarke were assigned by the court as counsel 
for the defendant. On March 18-28, 1901, the defendant 
was tried by a jury before Sherman and Fox, JJ. The 
result was a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. 
Exceptions w^ere filed by counsel for the defendant, which 
were argued before the Supreme Judicial Court on Jan. 6, 
1902. The exceptions were overruled, Feb. 27, 1902, and 
on June 14, 1902, the defendant was sentenced to death, 
the time of execution being fixed to take place during the 
week beginning Sept. 7, 1902. The prisoner was executed 
Sept. 9, 1902, in pursuance of his sentence. The trial of 
the case was conducted by the Attorney-General, assisted 
by District Attorney W. Scott Peters. 

Bernhard Palz of Holyoke, indicted in Hampden 
County, September, 1901, for the murder of Helena Lederer 
Fahring, at Holyoke, May 15, 1901. On Oct. 2, 1901, he 
was arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. Stephen J. Taft 
and T. J. O'Connor have been assigned by the court as 
counsel for the defendant. He has since retracted his plea 
of not guilty and pleaded guilty of murder in the second 
degree. The plea was accepted by the Commonwealth and 
he was thereupon sentenced to State Prison for life. The 
case w^as in charge of District Attorne}^ Charles L. Gardner. 

JoHX D. Cassells of Springfield, indicted in Hampden 
County, May, 1901, for the murder of Mary J. Lane, at 
Longmeadow, Feb. 26, 1901. On Sept. 5, 1901, he was 
arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. Stephen S. Taft and 
Dexter E. Tilley were assigned by the court as counsel for 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xi 

the defendant. On Dec. 30, 1901, the defendant was tried 
by a jury before Maynard and Hopkins, JJ. The result 
was a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. On 
Jan. 30, 1902, he was sentenced to death, the execution 
being fixed to take place in the week beginning May 4, 
1902, and on May 6, 1902, the prisoner was executed pur- 
suant to the sentence. The trial of the case was conducted 
by District Attorney Chas. L. Gardner. 

Jane Toppax of Cambridge, indicted in Barnstable 
County, December, 1901, for the murder of Mary D. Gibbs 
at Bourne, Aug. 12, 1901. At the same sitting of the 
court the grand jury also returned other indictments against 
the same defendant, charging her with the murder of Alden 
P. Davis at Bourne, Aug. 8, 1901, and with the murder of 
Genevieve D. Gordon at Bourne, July 30, 1901. 

On the sixth day of December, 1901, she was arraigned, 
and pleaded not guilty to each of these indictments. Fred 
M. Bixby, Esq., of Brockton, and James S. Murphy of 
Lowell were assigned by the court as senior and junior 
counsel respectively. 

On the twenty-third day of June, 1902, the prisoner was 
put to trial at Barnstable, upon the indictment charging her 
with the murder of Mary D. Gibbs. The case was in 
charge of the Attorney-General and the Hon. Lemuel 
LeBaron Holmes, district attorney. After the appointment 
of the latter as associate justice of the Superior Court, 
James M. Swift, acting district attorney, assisted in the 
preparation and trial. 

The extraordinary features of the case gave occasion in its 
early investigation to inquire as to the sanity of the prisoner. 
At the request of counsel for the defence, an eminent expert 
in mental diseases was appointed to act in behalf of the 
prisoner, and upon the suggestion of the government, de- 
fendant's counsel agreed that other experts, of like eminence, 
should be appointed to make investigation in behalf of the 
Commonwealth, either independently or in co-operation 
with the experts for the defence. After prolonged exam- 
ination, all the physicians so appointed unanimously reported 



xii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

that the}^ were of opinion that the prisoner was undoubtedly 
insane at the time of the commission of the homicide charged 
in the indictment upon which she was tried. 

In order that the issue might be conclusively determined, 
both as a matter of fact and law, the Commonwealth pro- 
ceeded to trial before Braley and Bell, J J. 

Evidence uncontroverted and undenied, tending to prove 
the homicide as charged in the indictment, w^as introduced, 
together with testimony of the medical experts who had acted 
for the Commonwealth and for the defence. Under appro- 
priate instructions of the court a verdict of not guilty by 
reason of insanity was returned l:)y the jury. The medical 
testimony was direct and unequivocal to the effect that the 
prisoner suffered from a permanent and incurable form of 
insanity, and that she could never be at large or unconfined 
without danger to others. Upon the return of the verdict 
the prisoner was duly committed to the Taunton Insane 
Hospital for the remainder of her natural life. 

The other indictments above mentioned are still pending. 

Indictments for murder, found since the date of the last 
annual report, have been disposed of as follows : — 

Carl Frederick Torxo of Webster, indicted in Worces- 
ter County, August, 1902, for the murder of Rudolph Torno, 
at Dudley, June 30, 1902. He was arraigned Aug. 29, 
1902, and pleaded not guilty. John E. Sullivan and Charles 
Haggerty were assigned by the court as counsel for the de- 
fendant. On Nov. 10, 1902, the defendant was tried by a 
jury before Hardy and Waite, JJ. After the introduction 
of all the evidence, by leave of court and with the consent 
ot the Commonwealth the defendant retracted his plea of not 
guilty and pleaded guilty of murder in the second degree. 
This plea was accepted by the Commonwealth and he was 
thereupon sentenced to State Prison for life. The case was 
in charge of District Attorney Rockwood Hoar. 

Michael Kilroy of Boston, indicted in Suffolk County, 
February, 1902, for the murder of Bridget Kilroy, at Bos- 
ton, Jan. 26, 1902. He was arraigned Feb. 12, 1902, and 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xiii 

pleaded not guilty. William W. Doherty and Ralph S. 
Bartlett were assigned by the court as counsel for the de^ 
fendant. In October, 1902, the defendant was tried by a 
jury before Hardy and DeCourcy, J J. The result of the 
trial was a verdict of murder in the second degree ; and on 
Oct. 10, 1902, the defendant was sentenced to State Prison 
for life. The case was in charge of District Attorney Oliver 
Stevens. 

Charles W. Himmerman of Boston, indicted in Suftblk 
County, October, 1902, for the murder of Mary E. Himmer- 
man, at Boston, Sept. 5, 1902. He was arraigned Oct. 
14, 1902, and pleaded guilty of murder in the first degree ; 
this plea was retracted and on the same day he pleaded 
guilty of murder in the second degree. The plea was 
accepted by the Commonwealth, and he was thereupon 
sentenced to State Prison for life. The case was in charge 
of District Attorney Oliver Stevens. 

Herbert E. Hill of Boston, indicted in Sufi'olk County ,^ 
August, 1902, for the murder of Alice C. Riley at Boston, 
July 8, 1902. After hearing on Aug. 15, 1902, the de- 
fendant was adjudged insane by the court and committed to 
the Worcester Insane Hospital. The case was in charge of 
District Attorney Oliver Stevens. 

Joseph Wilfred Blondix, a/m.s* Joseph Barnard, of 
Boston, indicted in Suflblk County, June, 1902, for the 
murder of Margaret Emma Blondin at Boston, April 27, 
1902. He was arraigned June 20, 1902, and pleaded not 
guilty. John H. Morrison, James F. Owens and J. B. D. 
Jaques acted as counsel for the defendant. In December, 
1902, the defendant was tried by a jury before Braley and 
Stevens, J J. The result was a verdict of murder in the 
second degree. On Dec. 31, 1902, the defendant was sen- 
tenced to State Prison for life. The case was in charge of 
the Attorney-General, assisted by John D. McLaughlin, 
Esq., assistant district attorney. 



xiv ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Leon H. Hapgood of Rutland, indicted in Worcester 
County, January, 1902, for the murder of Samson Seaverns 
at Rutland, Jan. 19, 1902. He was arraigned May 21, 
1902, and pleaded not guilty. Later the defendant re- 
tracted his former plea, and pleaded guilty of murder in the 
second degree. The plea was accepted by the Common- 
wealth, and thereupon the defendant was sentenced to State 
Prison for life. Messrs. Stiles and Tatman appeared as 
counsel for the defendant. The case was in charge of 
District Attorney Rock wood Hoar. 

Nina F. Danforth of Newton, indicted in Middlesex 
County, June, 1902, for the murder of Andrew J. Emery 
at Framingham, May 17, 1902. She was arraigned June 
12, 1902, and pleaded not guilty. Arthur T. Johnson and 
Franz H. Krebs, Jr., were assigned b}' the court as counsel 
for the prisoner. On Nov. 12, 1902, she retracted her plea 
of not guilty and pleaded guilty of manslaughter. The plea 
was accepted by the Commonwealth, and she was thereupon 
sentenced to the house of correction for one year and nine 
months. 

James F. Elisha of Boston, indicted in Suffolk County, 
May, 1902, for the murder of Jennie Elisha at Boston, 
April 15, 1902. He was arraigned May 13, 1902, and 
pleaded not guilty. James H. Wolff and Joseph G. Holt 
were assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. 
On Dec. 17„ 1902, the defendant retracted his former plea of 
not guilty and pleaded guilty of murder in the second 
degree. This plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, 
and thereupon he w^as sentenced to State Prison for life. 
The case was in charge of District Attorney Oliver Stevens. 

Bernard Weithaas of Springfield, indicted in Hampden 
County, May, 1902, for the murder of Elizabeth Weithaas 
at Springfield, April 15, 1902. He was arraigned May 19, 
1902, and pleaded not guilty. James E. Dunleavy and T. 
Y. O'Connor were assigned by the court as counsel for the 
defendant. On Dec. 24, 1902, the defendant retracted his 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xv 

former plea and pleaded guilty of murder in the second 
degree. This plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, and 
the defendant was thereupon sentenced to State Prison for 
life. The case was in charge of District Attorney John F. 
Noxon. 

Ceriaco Sorrentixo of Boston, indicted in Suffolk 
County, August, 1902, for the murder of Giuseppe Caruco 
at Boston, July 10, 1902. He was arraigned Aug. 14, 1902, 
and pleaded not guilty. On Nov. 26, 1902, he retracted 
his former plea of not guilty and pleaded guilt}^ of man- 
slaughter. This plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, 
and on Dec. 31, 1902, the defendant was sentenced to State 
Prison for not less than eight nor more than twelve years. 
The case was in charge of District Attorney Oliver Stevens. 

Louis Bitzer of Montague, indicted in Franklin County 
in March, 1902, for the murder of Ida May Columbe at 
Montague, Dec. 31, 1901. He was arraigned March 18, 
1902, and pleaded not guilty. Frederick L. Greene and 
James J. Leary were assigned by the court as counsel for 
the defendant. On Dec. 29, 1902, the defendant retracted 
his former plea and pleaded guilty of murder in the second 
degree. This plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, and 
thereupon the defendant was sentenced to State Prison for 
life. The case was in charge of the Attorney-General, 
assisted by District Attorney Dana Malone. 

Louis Bitzer of Montague, indicted in Franklin County, 
March, 1902, for the murder of Louis Martin Bitzer at 
Montague, Dec. 31, 1901. The defendant having been sen- 
tenced to imprisonment for life upon another indictment, 
the one above mentioned has been placed on file, which is in 
efiect a final disposition of that case. 

The following indictments for murder are now pending : — 

AxDREAS Samiczki of Southwick, indicted in Hampden 
County, September, 1902, for the murder of Anna Samiczki 
at Southwick, Sept. 14, 1902. Up to the present time no 
further proceedings have been had in this case. 



xvi ATTOENEr-GENEEAL'S EEPOET. [Ja„. 

Demetezo Bagki of Plymouth, indicted in Plyn.outh 
Cunty February 1902, for the murder of Elizabeth Fe ^ 

28 190.''"°; ^' ?1- ''' ''''■ ""' ^-'^ --'g-d Feb. 
John J M fin "' '"''''■ '''""^" H- 0«born and 
?or h . f f r^' "'"^"-^^ "^^ '^' -«rt as counsel 
foi the defendant. I„ June, 1902, the defendant was tried 
by a jury, before Hardy and Stevens, JJ. The jury fa ed 

agree upon a verdict and no further action'has been 

dt::^;tatt'oLr " '" ^'"°" °' ^^-^ "• ^■•^-^'^^ 

H. Blake, indicted in Middlesex County, June. 1902. for 
the murder ot Thomas Keefe, at Everett, Feb. 20, 1902 
They were arraigned June 12, 1902, and pleaded not guilty' 
John J. Walsh and Thomas P. Eiley were assigned tn- tl; 
ccau- as counsel for the defendants. On Oct! 13, 1902 
the defendants were placed on trial by a jury before Harris 

Blake and a verdict of murder in the second degre^ for Car- 
Sanderson."" "'" '" '^'"■-^^ °' ^■■^*"^-' ^"-->- «-rg^ A. 

1 recall attention to the suggestions made by my prede- 
last year, relating to the trial of capital cases, and I fully 

wHV" T"'"" "^"' '^'''' ^^^™^ g°°'» reason for 

legislation providing for the trial of such cases before one 
or more justices of the Superior Court, rather than to adhere 
to he present .requirement of the law, that two or more 
such justices shall preside at trials. Js^o safeguard to L 

ort;;;rred"°"i' '^' "' ''''- ^'^^-^^^ ^° p--^--' —'^ 

wo^ d be "" ""^^''""' "■'■°' "' '^'^ ^» t'^« trial court 

Cou t T- "T' ZZ'"' ""'"°" "^ '''' Supreme Judicial 
Couit. It IS often difficult, and at times impossible, to so 
anange the constant and pressing work of'the Superior 
trial If /r™'' '^' '^-ignn'ont of two justices for the 

1 w?th t '"" f ''"* ^°"" "'^'^y' -•-t'^-t inter- 
fenng with the regular and necessary work of the court 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. . 12. 



XV 11 



Every effort has been made to secure speedy trials, and no 
case has occurred within my knowledge where the cause of 
the Commonwealth or of the prisoner has been prejudiced 
by any postponement of trial, but the possibility should be 
avoided as far as may be. I therefore renew the recommen- 
dations of the former Attorney-General, that the statutes be 
so amended that capital trials may be conducted by one or 
more justices of the Superior Court rather than by two or 
more, as is now required. 

The Court of Land Registration. 

I concur again in the suggestions made by my predeces- 
sor in his last official report with regard to the Court of 
Land Registration. I am of opinion that its establishment 
and maintenance are in the line of wise public policy. Its 
great usefulness and necessity have been long recognized by 
those familiar with the transfer and record of land titles, and 
as its procedure and efficient administration have become 
known to those who have invoked its jurisdiction it has 
commanded popular approval and confidence . through the 
certainty and permanence of its adjudications. Legislation 
that will tend to enlarge the sphere of its action, and make 
its methods and its advantao'es in determinino^ and fixinir 
titles, and simplifying their transfer and record, more famil- 
iar to the public at large, will be in my judgment well 
advised. And I recommend that loans to savings banks 
exceeding $20,000 in principal shall be made only upon 
mortgages of land the title to which has been duly regis- 
tered by this court. 

I am of opinion that it will be well to confer upon this 
court exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings for the 
settlement of title to lands, as upon petition for quieting- 
title and upon writs of entry ; adequate provision being 
made for trial upon appeal or exception of actual questions 
of fact before a jury in the Superior Court, and of law in 
that court, and ultimately in the Supreme Judicial Court. 



xviii ATTOKNEY-GENERAL'S KEPORT. [Jan. 

Jurors in Capital Cases. 

By immemorial usage, jurors impanelled in capital cases 
are kept in complete isolation until discharged of their 
verdict. I entertain grave doubt whether there exists ade- 
quate reason for imposing this great personal hardship upon 
citizens in discharging a public duty. I am led to believe 
that the unnatural conditions resulting from separation from 
all the ordinary relations of their lives tend to affect the 
normal processes of reasoning, and to cause mental and 
physical uneasiness, to a greater or less extent, preventing 
concentrated attention to the evidence and issues before 
them. The law seeks such action by jurors as will reflect 
normal and conscientious intellectual effort, and conditions 
tending to preserve rather than to remove this state of mind 
should be maintained. 

The opportunity in case of freedom from restraint, for 
possi])le attempt to corrupt the mind of a juror I do not 
deem of real significance, for I have absolute faith in the 
moral integrity of citizens chosen to perform this service. 
The anticipation of the confinement now to be expected 
doubtless tends, unconsciously perhaps, to induce a juror 
called for qualification to express such views as may excuse 
him from serving. In my judgment, this temptation should 
be removed. Were the requirement of isolation dispensed 
with I am of opinion that fewer reasons for excuse would 
appear, and that an improvement in the personnel of juries 
would ])e almost certain to result. 

Collateral Inheritance Tax. 
St. 1902, chapter 473, postpones the time when the col- 
lateral inheritance tax upon a devise, descent or bequest to 
a taxable person, Avhich takes effect in possession or comes 
into actual enjoyment after the expiration of one or more 
life estates or a term of years, shall l)e due and payable 
until such time as the person or persons shall come into 
actual possession of the property. It also provides that the 
executor may settle his account in the Probate Court in such 
cases without being lialJe for the tax, although the tax on 
real estate remains as a lien thereon until paid. In cases 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. xix 

falling within the provisions of this statute it often happens 
that the tax upon a remainder is deferred for a long term of 
years. The obligation to meet the tax when due rests only 
upon the remainderman, and no specific record of such obli- 
ofations exists in the Probate Court or elsewhere. Under 
these circumstances it is very difficult to keep the matter in 
view in the case of personal property, especially where the 
intervening life estate or term of years is exempt from tax- 
ation. Even if proper records could be made and such 
remainders could be followed up for the purpose of collect- 
ing the tax when due, it frequently happens that both the 
life tenant to whom the property has passed and the re- 
mainderman from whom the tax is due are beyond the 
jurisdiction of the Commonwealth when the property actu- 
ally vests in the latter, and even with proper notice of the 
vesting of the property, no collection can be made, as 
the executor is discharged from liability. It follows that 
the collection of the tax became practically impossible. 

In order to carry out the intent of the Legislature, and to 
make the statute effective, I suggest that there be added to 
the existing law some provision similar in purpose to that 
enacted in Laws of New York, 1892, chapter 399, section 7, 
w^hich is as follows : — 

Any person or corporation beneficially interested in any property 
chargeable with a tax under this act, and executors, administrators 
and trustees thereof, may elect within one year from the date of 
the transfer thereof as herein provided not to pay such tax until 
the person or persons beneficially interested therein shall come 
into the actual possession or enjoyment thereof. If it be personal 
property, the person or persons so electing shall give a bond to the 
state in penalty of three times the amount of any such tax, with 
such sureties as the surrogate of the proper county may approve, 
conditioned for th€ payment of such tax and interest thereon, at 
such time or period as the person or persons beneficially inter- 
ested therein may come into the actual possession or enjoyment of 
such property, which bond shall be filed in the otRce of the surro- 
gate. Such bond must be executed and filed and a full return of 
such property upon oath made to the surrogate within one year 
from the date of transfer thereof as herein provided, and such bond 
must be renewed every five years. 



XX ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

If a legatee desiring the benefit of a postponement should 
be put upon his election, and, choosing to avail himself of 
the act, should be forced to file a bond or give some other 
form of security satisfactory to the probate court, and ade- 
quate to meet the tax when it falls due, the end desired 
would be secured. 

The provisions of Revised Laws, chapter 15, although 
definite and exhaustive, do not cover all possible contin- 
gencies w^hich may arise under the act. It often happens 
that the testator makes such complicated disposition of his 
property as to render the computation of the tax by the 
methods set forth in the statute extremely difficult, if not 
impossible. This is particularly the case where the tax is 
dependent upon the exercise of a discretion confided to the 
executor or to some trustee. It would greatly facilitate the 
collection of the inheritance tax in many instances, and 
would probably meet with general approval of those con- 
cerned in the assessment and collection of the tax, if the 
Treasurer were authorized in such cases to exercise a proper 
discretion in making adjustment and settlement, and to give 
a receipt in full upon payment of the amount so fixed and 
determined. 

Fire Marshal's Department of the District Police. 

I am of opinion that the act passed last year, committing 
to the District Police department the former duties and 
powers of the Fire Marshal, should be amended so that the 
aids of the Fire Marshal's department of the District Police 
shall each have all the powers and be subject to all the 
duties of members of the detective department of the Dis- 
trict Police, and that such aids shall be assigned to the 
investigation of fires by the deputy chief of the Fire Mar- 
shal's department whenever he deems it necessary, and that 
they may be detailed by the chief of the District Police for 
service in the detective department whenever the exigencies 
of the service may require. 

The officers of the Fire Marshal's department often have 
occasion to make an immediate arrest ; upon the discovery 
of facts warranting such action, they should have authority 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xxi 

to do this, without, as might now be the case, enlisting the 
aid of some other officer, and perhaps through the delay 
necessarily resulting giving the suspected person an oppor- 
tunity to escape. Conferring this incidental power upon 
these officers is in keeping with the purpose and intent of 
the act as heretofore passed, and will directly tend to increase 
the efficiency of the entire force. 

The assignment of aids of the Fire Marshal's department 
to detective work will in many instances be as effective as 
the increase of the force of the detective department of the 
police force, and will afford an additional local officer for 
general detective work under the direction of the district 
attorneys, without impairing in any degree the efficiency of 
service in investigating fires. 

Commitments to Insane Asylums. 

I am of opinion that some modification should be made in 
the statutory law with regard to the commitment of persons 
found not guilty, by reason of insanit}^, in capital cases, and 
perhaps in others as well, so that the commitment shall be 
ordered by the court to the department for the criminal 
insane at Bridgewater ; and that adequate provision be there 
made for the confinement of female prisoners, such provision 
already existing, as I am informed, for the confinement of 
males. 

There seems to me to be good reason for objection to the 
present system, under which a person, guilty in fact of 
homicide or murder, but held irresponsible by reason of 
mental condition, should be confined, and continue, in con- 
stant association with other inmates of our insane asylums 
who are there confined solely by reason of the misfortune of 
their condition, and without taint of any offence against the 
law. 

The Bertillon System. 

I recommend the extension of the so-called Bertillon 
system of measurement and record of persons convicted of 
crime so that all persons convicted and committed on sen- 
tences for felony shall be so measured and recorded. The 
restrictive provisions relating to the publication of these 



xxii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

records, as now fixed by the law, sufficiently prevent any 
injustice to the convict through undue publication, since, in 
effect, the record can be disclosed only in the event of a 
new arrest of the convict, and then only to public officials 
in connection with the public service. At present the law 
requires the measurement and record only in cases where 
the sentence imposed is of imprisonment for a term not less 
than three years, a limitation that is in my opinion illogical. 
Conviction of felony is of itself evidence of a serious in- 
fraction of the law, irrespective of the term of sentence 
imposed. The record of the conviction, even of misde- 
meanor, is permanently preserved in the court records, to 
be used ever afterwards, if occasion arises, as evidence 
to impeach the credibility of the convict if he offer his 
testimony in a court. The stigma now attending the con- 
viction of crime is not appreciably increased by the preser- 
vation of the ph3\sical identity of the convict, when his 
identity by name is already inseparably attached to the 
record of his offence. Every officer who has had experience 
in the prosecution of crime knows that there are many 
offenders, who, moving from one State or jurisdiction to 
another, are apprehended, but, there being no means of 
identifying them with former offences, are treated as first 
offenders, and accordingly are punished by the imposition 
of short terms, almost always less than three years. By 
the extension of the physical record system, in the class of 
cases referred to, adequate sentences would result, with 
])etter protection to the public. 

Office of the Attorney-General. 

I respectfully recommend that the office of chief clerk of 
this department be established. The voluminous records 
incident to the work such officer is required to perform, the 
intelligence, experience and responsible care necessary for 
their proper entry, classification and preservation will, in 
my judgment, fully justify the creation of the office, and 
it will entail no substantial increase in expenditure for 
salary. 

I make grateful acknowledgment of the personal and 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. xxiii 

official obligation T owe to the late Attorney-General Knowl- 
ton. With characteristic generosity of heart and mind he 
gave me every assistance and encouragement upon my 
undertaking the discharge of the responsible duties of this 
department. His opinions have illumined every field of my 
official investigation, his example I have found my safest 
guide. His lamented death has not ended his service to the 
Commonwealth, for the principles he defined, his high ideals 
of fidelity to duty, his fearless vindication of the law which 
makes the safety of the Commonwealth, must be reflected 
in the administration of those who follow him. His services 
and his memory will remain a vital and potent influence for 
good in our civic life. 

Mr. James Mott Hallowell and Mr. Franklin T. Ham- 
mond, former assistant attorneys-general, resigned their 
respective positions to enter into private business associa- 
tion with their former chief. They also have generously 
and ably rendered every assistance to their successors who 
have taken up the work assigned to them. 

I deeply regret that Mr. Frederick E. Hurd, formerly 
assistant attorney-general, has been prevented by ill health 
from performing the duties he has heretofore so admirably 
discharged. At his request I was obliged to accept his res- 
ignation, taking efiect on the first day of September last. 
His work was always of the very highest order, and of 
inestimable value to the State. 

This department has been fortunate in being able to retain 
the services of Mr. Arthur W. DeGoosh, Mr. Frederick H. 
Nash and Mr. Frederic B. Greenhalge as assistant attor- 
neys-general. 

To provide for the vacancies referred to I have appointed 
Mr. Ralph A. Stewart of Worcester and Mr. Robert G. 
Dodge of Newbury port as assistants. 

Appended to this report are printed the principal opinions 
prepared during the current year. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HERBERT PARKER, 

Attorney- Oeneral. 



oi'Tisrioisrs 



Toions — ^ Public Library — Support. 

A library, situated in a town, to which the inhabitants thereof have free 
access, and of which they have the use, although it is not owned or 
controlled by the town, is a public library within the meaning of 
R. L., c. 102, § 163, which provides that money received from the 
issuance of dog licenses shall be returned to cities and towns to be 
expended for the support of public libraries or schools. 

Jan. 18, 1902. 
Hon. C. B. TiLLiNGHAST, Chairman, Free Public Library Commission. 

Dear Sir: — Your letter of January 16 requests the opinion 
of the Attorney-General upon the question whether a town may 
lawfully appropriate money received from dog licenses to the sup- 
port and maintenance of any library to which the inhabitants have 
free access and of which they have the use, although such library 
is not owned and controlled by the town. 

R. L., c. 102, § 163, provides that money received under the 
provisions relating to dogs shall be paid back to the treasurers 
of the cities and towns, "and the money so refunded shall' be 
expended for the support of public libraries or schools ; " R. L., 
c. 25, § 15, provides that a town may appropriate money for the 
following purposes, among others : " For the establishment, main- 
tenance or increase of a public library therein, and for the erection 
or provision of suitable buildings or rooms therefor; " and " For 
maintaining a library therein, to which the inhabitants have free 
access and of which they have the use, and for establishing and 
maintaining a public reading-room in connection with and under 
the control of the managers of such library." 

The question is, whether a library not owned and controlled by 
the town, yet open to the free access and use of the inhabitants 
of the town, is a public library within the meaning of chapter 102, 
section 163. The apparent argument against including such a 
library within the phrase "public library" is that in chapter 25, 
section 15, above quoted, the Legislature seems to make a dis- 
tinction between such library and a public library, by providing, 
in separate paragraphs, for their maintenance. I am of opinion, 



2 ATTOEXEY-GENERAL'S EEPORT. [Jan. 

however, that no such distinction was intended, and that, whether 
a library is owned by the town or not, dog license money may be 
appropriated to it so long as the inhabitants of the town have free 
access^to it. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Trust Company — Place of Business — Branch Office. 

A trust company may legally receive or disburse money at a place other 
than its main office; and, subject to the provisions of R. L., c. 116^ 
§ 35, may purchase and hold real estate for the purpose of maintain- 
ing a branch office. 

Jan. 20, 1902. 

Hon. Starkes Whiton, Chairman, Board of Savings Bank Commissioners. 

Dear Sir : — The first question submitted by your letter is, 
whether a trust company, subject to the provisions of R. L., 
c. 116, may receive or pay out money at any place other than at 
its main office. 

Receiving deposits and paying checks at a branch office is inci- 
dental to the business of a trust company, and may be done 
unless prohibited by statute. R. L., c. 116 (the act relating to 
trust companies), contains no such prohibition. The act relating 
to banks and banking (R. L., c. 115), however, provides as fol- 
lows: " Section 30. A bank shall carry on at its banking house 
only the usual business of banking, and no loan or discount shall 
be made, nor shall a bill or note be issued by said bank, or by 
any person on its account, in any other place than at its bank- 
ing house." There is a similar prohibition in the law regulating 
savings banks (R. L., c. 113, § 20) and co-operative banks (R. L., 
c. 114, § 27). 

Since our statutes have made this distinction between trust com- 
panies and other banking institutions, I am of opinion that your 
question must be answered in the affirmative. See 2^ash v. 
Broimi, 165 Mass. 384. 

Your second inquiry is as follows: "Can such company, hir- 
ing and occupying offices for its general business, purchase and 
hold other real estate in the same city for an office in which to 
receive and payout money? " This question is answered by R. L., 
c. 116, § 35, which is as follows: "Such corporation may hold 
real estate unencumbered by mortgage suitable for the trans- 
action of its business to an amount including the cost of altera- 
tions and additions in the nature of permanent fixtures, not 
exceeding twenty-five per cent of its capital actually paid in, and 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 3 

in no case to exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ; but 
the provisions of this section shall not require such corporation to 
change an investment legally made prior to the eighteenth day of 
April in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-four." 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney -General. 



Registered Pharmacist — Examination — Inability of Candidate 
to understand the English Language. 

A person who presents himself as a candidate for examination for regis- 
tration as a pharmacist is not necessarily debarred therefrom because 
he is unable to speak, read or write the English language. 

Jan. 22, 1902. 
Amos K. Tilden, Esq., Secretary, Board of Begistration in Pharmacy. 

Dear Sir : — Your letter requires the opinion of the Attorney- 
Oeneral upon the question whether your Board is required by law 
to examine an applicant for registration who is unable to speak, 
read or write the English language. 

The statute defining your duty is R. L., c. 76, § 14: "A per- 
son who desires to do business as a pharmacist shall, upon pay- 
ment of five dollars, be entitled to an examination, and if found 
qualified, shall be registered as a pharmacist, and shall receive a 
certificate signed by the president and secretary of said board." 

I am aware of no provision of law which denies to any person 
the right to enter upon legitimate fields of labor or enterprise, for 
the sole reason that he is unacquainted with the English language. 
Whether such a person is qualified to be registered as a pharmacist 
is a question for your Board alone. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney -General. 



Pauper — Settlement. 

A widow, owning and occupying an estate of inheritance or freehold for 
three consecutive years, may thereby acquire a settlement, in accord- 
ance with the provisions of R.'L., c. 80, § 1, cl. 4. 

Under the provisions of R. L., c. 80, § 1, cl. 5, not only the assessment of 
the taxes specified therein but also the payment thereof must be made 
within a period of five consecutive years. 

Jan. 23, 1902. 

J. F. Lewis, M.D., Superintendent, State Adult Poor. 

Dear Sir : — Your letter of January 18 requests the opinion of 
the Attorney-General upon the following questions : — 



4 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

1. "Can a widow obtain a settlement in a town by ownership 
and occupancy of real estate for three years under R. L., c. 80, 
§ 1, cl. 4?" 

This clause provides that a person of the age of twenty-one 
years, who has an estate of inheritance or freehold in any place 
within the Commonwealth, and lives thereon three consecutive 
years, shall thereby acquire a settlement in such place. I am of 
the opinion that under this statute a widow may obtain a settle- 
ment by fulfilling the requirements therein set forth. Orleans v. 
Chatham^ 2 Pick. 29. See Spencer v. Leicester^ 140 Mass. 224. 

2. "A pauper who has been a resident of the city of Cambridge 
from May 1, 1894, to the present time, was assessed poll taxes in 
1894, 1895 and 1896, which taxes were paid on Oct. 17, 1895, 
Jan. 12, 1898, aud Nov. 13, 1900, respectively. Has such pauper 
a legal settlement in the city of Cambridge under the provisions of 
R. L., c. 80, § 1, cl. 5?" 

This clause provides that a person of the age of twenty-one 
years, who resides in any place within this Commonwealth for five 
consecutive years, and within that time pays all State, county, city 
or town taxes, duly assessed on his poll or estate for any three 
years within that time, shall thereby acquire a settlement in such 
place. I am of the opinion that it was clearly the intention of the 
Legislature to require that not only the assessment of the specified 
taxes, but also the payment thereof, should be made within the 
period of five consecutive years. See P. S., c. 83, § 1, cl. 5 ; 
1 Op. Atty.-Geu., 519; St. 1898, c. 425, § 1. 

It follows, therefore, that the pauper in question did not acquire 
a settlement in Cambridge. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Militia — Board of Examiners — Commissioned Officer — Inability 
to appear for Examination by Reason of Sickness. 

The Board of Examiners may accept competent proof of the inability of 
an officer to appear before sucti Board for examination within the limit 
of time required l)y R. L., c. 16, § 57; and, if such inability was 
occasioned by ill health, may postpone the time of examination. 

Feb. 6, 1902 
Maj.-Gen. Samuel Dalton, Adjutant- General. 

Dear Sir: — You inquire, in your letter of January 25 to this 
department : First, if an officer, duly elected and commissioned in 
the militia, aud ordered to appear for examination, as required. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 5 

within forty days, and who, by reason of sickness, fails to appear, 
and, as evidence of his inability to appear from such cause, fur- 
nishes to the Board of Examiners the certificate of his attending 
physician, does such officer come within the provisions of R. L., 
c. 16, § 57? Second, is it obligatory that such officer who did 
appear before the examining Board after the expiration of forty 
days, and was examined and found competent, must be dis- 
charged ? 

To your first question I have to say that, while the language of 
the statute to which you refer is in form directory, it should be 
construed liberally enough to permit the Board of Examiners to 
accept competent proof of an officer's inability to appear before 
it within the required limit of time ; and the Board of Examiners, 
being satisfied that the inability was caused by ill health, may, in 
my opinion, postpone the time of examination, and the examina- 
tion then held would be within the intent and purpose of the 
statute. 

To your second question I have to say that I am of opinion 
that, if the officer be found qualified upon such postponed exam- 
ination, he neither ought to, nor must, be discharged from the 
service ; but the result of such examination would be the same as 
if the examination had been held within the limit of time fixed by 
the statute. 

Ver}^ truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney -General. 



Commissioners on Fisheries and Game — Protection of Lobsters 
— SJiort Lobsters. 

R. L., c. 91, § 88, in terms makes the possession of protected lobsters an 
offence, without regard to the place where they were caught or the 
intent of the possessor as to their disposition. 

March 14, 1902. 
Joseph W. Collins, Esq., 

Chairman, Commissioners on Fisheries and Game. 

Dear Sir : — You request the opinion of the Attorney-General 
upon the construction of the statute relating to lobsters. 

R. L., c. 91, § 88, provides that whoever sells or offers for sale, 
or has in his possession, an uncooked lobster less than ten and one- 
half inches in length, shall forfeit a penalty for every such lobster. 

First. — This section in terms makes it an offence to have in 
one's possession protected- lobsters, without regard to the place 
where they were caught, and without regard to the intent of the 
person in possession as to their disposition. It applies as well to 



6 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

lobsters imported from other States or countries as to lobsters 
caught within the waters of this Commonwealth. Its evident ob- 
ject is to prevent Massachusetts lobsters from being sold under 
pretence of their having been imported. Commonivealtli v. Savage^ 
155 Mass. 278. 

It is to be noted that the statute makes a distinction between 
short lobsters and egg-bearing lobsters. In section 86 the penalty 
is provided only for selling egg-bearing lobsters, or having them in 
one's possession with intent to sell them. 

Second. — In the event that State officers, duly authorized to 
enforce the fish and game laws, find among packages of imported 
lobsters any, the possession of which is prohibited, they may seize 
such lobsters and put them into Massachusetts waters. R. L., 
c. 91, § 91. But if lobsters so found are in fact merely in transit 
through this Commonwealth to another jurisdiction, with no intent 
whatever to make disposition of them here, the authority to make 
seizures is not, in my opinion, clear. See Commomvealth v. Young, 
165 Mass. 396. 

Third. — The fact that a Massachusetts dealer receives pro- 
tected lobsters from the British Provinces on a way-bill to Boston, 
though he subsequently ships them Avithout the Commonwealth, 
may warrant a finding that he was illegally in possession of them. 
Whether he was a mere forwarding agent for the foreign owners 
is a question to be determined only from the facts of each case. 
If it were proved that such dealer was a mere forwarding agent, 
and the protected lobsters were found here only in transit to 
another jurisdiction, it is not settled that such facts would be a 
valid defence. In Commonwealth v. Young, supra, this question 
is expressly left open. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Civil Service — Employee — Discharge — Reinstatement. 

The discharge of an employee by an oflScial lawfully empowered thereto, 
duly certified to and recorded by the Civil Service Commission, cannot 
be withdrawn and such employee reinstated by the successor in office 
of such official. 

Apkil 3, 1902. 

Hon. Charles Theodore Russell, Chairman, Civil Service Commission. 

Dear Sir : -^ In answer to your inquiry set forth in your letter 
of February 15, I state my opinion upon the several points as fol- 
lows : — 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT— Xo-. 12. 7 

The facts upon which the inquiry is based are plainl}^ aud sub- 
stantially set forth in your letter, and I understand them to be in 
effect as follows : One Patrick Geoghegan was an inspector of 
work in the street department of Boston, where he had been em- 
ployed for many years prior to March 25, 1901 , when he was dis- 
charged by the then superintendent of streets, having authority to 
make such discharge. A due record was made, stating that the 
cause of discharge was for the good of the service. The position 
formerly held by Geoghegan was included within civil service 
classifications. The discharge was duly reported to the Civil Ser- 
vice Commission. 

I understand now that the superintendent of streets who made 
the discharge has retired from office, and a successor is now acting 
in his place. The latter now submits to your Board a request that 
he be permitted to withdraw the discharge, and thereby restore the 
former employee to his place. The reason suggested for this 
withdrawal is that the present superintendent of streets is of the 
opinion that the discharge was based upon errors of fact, or was 
in fact unjustifiable, the discharge not being impeached upon any 
ground of a clerical error in the record, but upon the facts which 
the record correctly sets forth. 

I am of the opinion that the discharge, having been made by 
one lawfully empowered to make it, aud it having been duly re- 
corded and certified to your Board, must be held, for the purposes 
of your administration, to be conclusive. I am of the opinion 
that you may not and ought not to consent to the withdrawal of 
the discharge as suggested by the present superintendent of streets, 
and, indeed, I know of no authority that would permit you to give 
this permission. Assuming, therefore, as we must, that, the dis- 
charge having been made, a vacancy in the position now exists, it 
can be filled only in compliance with the rules of the commission 
by a new appointment. 

The law appears to be perfectly clear, and the reason for the law 
is as plainly evident ; for if, upon every change of administration 
in any department of service subject to the ruling of your com- 
mission, the records of discharges or adjudications by former 
incumbents of office were to be reviewed, vacated or set aside, 
obviously great confusion would result, and the plain intent of the 
^civil service law would be evaded. 
Very truly ^^ours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney-General . 



ATTORXEY-GENEEAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Board of Commissioners of Savings Banks — Investments for 
Savings Banks — Bonds of Toum of Danbury, Conn. — 
Valuation — Town Assessors. 

In determining wliether or not bonds issued by tlie town of Danbury, 
Conn., may be a legal investment for Massachusetts savings banks, 
under thie provisions of R. L., c. 113, § 26, vv^liich permits investment 
to be made in tlie bonds of any town in Connecticut wliose net indebt- 
edness does not exceed tliree per cent, of the last preceding valuation 
of the property therein for the assessment of taxes, the Board of 
Commissioners of Savings Banks must be guided by the valuation of 
the town assessors, and not by that of the State Board of Equalization 
of Connecticut, whose function under the laws of that State is simply 
to adjust the valuations among the several towns, so that the burden 
of the State tax may bear lequally upon them. 

April 8, 1902. 

Hon. Starkes Whiton, Chairman, Board of Savings Bank Commissioners. 

Dear Sir : — You request my opinion whether an issue of bonds 
by the town of Danbury, Conn., may be a legal investment for 
Massachusetts savings banks. 

R. L., c. 113, § 26, provides that such investment maybe made 
in the bonds of any town of Connecticut whose net indebtedness 
does not exceed three per cent, of the "last preceding valuation 
of the property therein for the assessment of taxes." The last 
assessed valuation of the property of Danbury, as reported by the 
town to the State Board of Equalization, was S7, 978, 801., To 
this the State Board added $5,110,000, making the last valuation 
of Danbury, upon which as a basis State taxes are imposed, 
$13,088,801. The net indebtedness of the tow^n, including this 
bond issue, is more than three per cent, of the last town valuation 
and less than three per cent, of the last State valuation ; therefore, 
it is necessary to decide which is the valuation contemplated by 
our statute. 

The last valuation by the State Board, being a valuation of the 
property in the town for the assessment of State taxes, is in a 
sense within the letter of the statute. It is the completecl valuation 
which, for the purposes of the State tax, must be substituted by 
the town clerk for the valuation as made up by the town authori- 
ties. Since a tow^n might evade its proper share of the State tax 
by making a low valuation and adopting a high rate, the designed 
effect of the State Board's action is to hold each town to its fair 
share of the burden. The State Board, however, does not make a 
revaluation in detail of the items appraised by the town assessors ; 
and, in niy opinion, the result w^hich it reaches is rather an esti- 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No, 12. 9 

mate of the towu's share of the public burden than a strict valua- 
tion of the town's property, such as our statute contemplates. 

The proceedings required by the law of Connecticut, G. S. §§ 3815 
to 3894, are in brief as follows : Each town assessor equalizes 
his list of valuations and lodges it in the town clerk's office on or 
before December 31. Thereupon the Board of Relief, a town 
Board, meets, and determines all appeals and equalizes and adjusts 
the assessed valuations of all the assessment lists. From the action 
of this Board appeal lies to the Superior Court. The town clerk, 
on or before March 1 , sends an abstract of the lists thus corrected 
by the Board of Relief to the State comptroller. Then the State 
Board of Equalization, consisting of the comptroller and treasurer, 
meets to " equalize and adjust the assessment lists of each town 
by adding to or deducting from its lists or an}^ part thereof such 
amount as, when compared with the valuations of other towns, 
will equalize the same." These lists, after they have been so 
equalized and adjusted, constitute the general list of the State 
upon which State taxes are imposed. Thereupon the town clerk 
is notified of any change made by the State Board. He makes 
his town list correspond, and State taxes are levied and collected 
on the list as so modified. 

Valuation is a judicial process. There must be some sort of 
opportunity to be heard on the question of value, else the tax 
payer's property is taken without due process of law. See Hagar 
V. Reclamation District^ 111 U. S. 701 ; Kentucky Railroad Tax 
Cases^ 115 U. S. 321. This is afforded by the proceedings in the 
equalization by the Board of Relief, with appeal to the Superior 
Court. There can be no question, therefore, that the valuation of 
$7,978,801 is a legal one. 

The State Board, on the other hand, determines without a hear- 
ing, and adds to the town valuations with no statutory limit upon 
its discretion. In the present case it has nearly doubled the valu- 
ation of Danbury. Without suggesting that in this instance it has 
exceeded its power, I think the Board might increase the valuation 
of a town to such an extent that the increased tax required of a 
town would amount to a taking of property without due process 
of law, or to an unreasonable discrimination against the town. 
In re de las Casas, 180 Mass. 471. 

In view of the facts that the town valuation as equalized by the 
Board of Relief is undeniably valid ; that the function of the State 
Board of Equalization is simply to adjust the valuations among the 
towns so that the State tax may bear equally upon them ; that this 
adjustment is liable to possible abuse, and is in strictness not a 



10 ATTORXEY-GEXEKAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

valuation of property within the town at all, — I am of the opinion 
that your Board should be governed by the valuation of the town 
assessors. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- GeiieraL 



Public Parks or Boulevards — Regulation of Advertisements — 
Police Power — Public Nuisance — Compeyisatioyi. 

Local authorities in the various cities and towns of the Commonwealth 
have no authority under existing laws to regulate or restrict the dis- 
play of advertisements beyond the limits of public parks, boulevards 
and ways. 

A bill providing that the authorities having charge of parks or parkways 
may make such reasonable rules and regulations respecting the display 
of signs, posters or advertisements, near and visible from public parks 
or boulevards, as they may deem necessary for preserving the objects 
for which parks or boulevards are established and maintained, and 
that, after publication of such regulations, any sign, poster or adver- 
tisement maintained in violation of them shall be a public nuisance, 
is a valid exercise of the police power, and neither owners of prop- 
erty affected, nor persons having contracts for advertising prevented 
thereby from performing the same, would be entitled to compensation. 

April 8, 1902. 
Hon. James J. Myers, Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Dear Sir: — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
the order of the House of Representatives, adopted March 20, 
1902, requiring my opinion upon the following questions, viz. : — 

" 1. In case Senate Bill No. 57, House Bill Xo. 621, House Bill 
Xo. 811, or any similar bill regulating and restricting the display 
of signs, posters and advertisements on or near any public parks 
and boulevards, should be enacted into law, would owners of prop- 
erty affected by such legislation, or persons having contracts for 
advertising which could not be lawfully performed by reason of 
such legislation, be entitled to compensation? 

"2. If the persons referred to in the foregoing questions are en- 
titled to compensation, can the General Court, by any form of 
statute, deprive them of that right or prevent the right from com- 
ing into existence? 

" 3. Have the local authorities in the various cities and towns of 
the Commonwealth authority under existing laws to regulate and 
restrict the display of advertisements on or near public parks and 
boulevards ? " 

In the consideration of these inquiries, I take them out of the 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 11 

order in which they are presented. In answer to the third inquiry, 
I am of opinion that the local authorities in the various cities and 
towns of the Commonwealth have power, under existing laws, to 
regulate and restrict the display of advertisements only within the 
limits of public parks, boulevards and public ways. At the boun- 
dary of private land their authority ceases. 

The second inquiry is stated in this form : "If the persons 
(owning property affected by the proposed legislation, or having 
contracts for advertising whic!i could not be lawfully performed by 
reason of such legislation) are entitled to compensation, can the 
General Court, by any form of statute, deprive them of that right 
or prevent the right from coming into existence?" 

Confining myself to the precise form of the question, I reply 
that no statute nor phrase of legislation can constitutionally de- 
prive a citizen of compensation to which he is lawfully entitled. 
It may be, however, that this direct reply does not measure the 
full scope of the inquiry intended by the Honorable House of Rep- 
resentatives to be transmitted to me. 

I answer further, therefore, that I am of opinion that the Leg- 
islature may, within the lawful exercise of the police power, impose 
restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of private property, and 
that no right to recover damages is thereby created, the reason 
being that no private right in such case has been violated, and no 
property of the citizen taken, since all ownership of property is 
conditioned upon, and subject to, the right of the public, exercised 
through legislative authority, to restrict the enjoyment of private, 
property in such reasonable manner and to such reasonable degree 
as the public safety and welfare may require. The exercise of 
this police powder must, however, alw^ays be conditioned upon the 
circumstances which gave rise to its invocation. Not every tak- 
ing, nor restriction, of the use of property, by public authority 
and without compensation, can be justified under the police powder. 
The restriction must be, if not necessary, at least reasonable. If 
it be the intent of the Legislature to exercise this police power, it 
must be unequivocally expressed in the act, and this may, perhaps, 
best be accomplished by making no provision for compensation. 
There must be no conditional nor alternative provision in this 
regard. If the act be a lawful exercise of police powder, the owner 
of property has, and can have, no right to compensation. If the 
legislation be not within the lawful limitation of the police powder, 
any impairment of property rights thereunder would be inoperative, 
as unconstitutional. I am led, then, to consider the limitations 
which define the scope of this police power, upon the issues raised 



12 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

by the first inquiry of the Honorable House of Representatives, 
which is stated as follows: "In case Senate Bill No. 57, House 
Bill No. 621, House Bill No. 811, or any similar bill regulating 
and restricting the display of signs, posters and advertisements on 
or near public parks and boulevards, siiould be enacted into law, 
would owners of property affected by such legislation, or persons 
having contracts for advertising which could not be lawfully per- 
formed by reason of such legislation, be entitled to compensation? " 

Senate Bill No. 57 differs from th^ two House bills, in that it 
gives the local authorities power to determine the character of all 
offences. Such power might be exercised in such a way as to 
make the statute objectionable. This bill and House Bill No. 211 
fix a limit in feet beyond which the rules of the park authorities 
shall have no effect. In my opinion, such limitation is unneces- 
sary to the validity of the act, and is arbitrary in its effect. 

I discuss, therefore, only House Bill No. 621, which seems best 
designed to accomplish what I assume to be the intent of the Leg- 
islature, and carefully guards the rights of property owners. 

The bill provides that the authorities having charge of parks or 
parkways may make such reasonable rules and regulations respect- 
ing the display of signs, posters or advertisements, near, and visible 
from, public parks or boulevards, as they may deem necessary for 
preserving the objects for which such parks or boulevards are estab- 
lished or maintained ; and that, after publication of the regulations, 
any sign, poster or advertisement maintained in violation of them 
shall be a public nuisance. 

Any use of private property which materially interferes with the 
public comfort, except in those cases where the reasonable require- 
ments of the owner afford him justification or excuse, is a nuisance. 
Noises and odors have always been treated as nuisances, even with- 
out legislative adjudica-tion that they are unwholesome. Davis v. 
jSaivyer, 133 Mass. 289 ; Commonwealth \.- Harris^ 101 Mass. 29 ; 
Commonioealth v. Perry^ 139 Mass. 198. 

There is no legal reason why an offence to the eyes should have 
a different standing from an offence to the other organs. To strike 
the unwilling ear is in principle the same as to catch the unwilling 
eye. Obnoxious signs have rarely been held to be actionable 
nuisances, because only lately has the attention of the courts been 
called to this aggressive method of disfiguring the landscape. 

An advertisement upon private land anywhere may be a public 
nuisance. In every case it would be a question of what is reason- 
able under the circumstances. The right to put glaring signs where 
people may not escape them is measured by the degree of annoyance 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 13 

to which the public may be reasonably required to submit for the 
benefit of private interests. The standard must be determined by 
the effect of posters upon people generally, in the locality where 
they are put, — not by their effect upon those who are peculiarly 
sensitive, nor upon those, on the other hand, whose optic nerves 
will bear the harshest stimulation without inconvenience. The 
Legislature may very appropriately recognize and deal with the 
effect upon people in general of unrestrained scenic advertising, 
and take measures for its proper repression ; and it has often 
declared certain conditions or objects to be nuisances in them- 
selves, and provided that they may be regulated and controlled 
by local authorities. See Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 144 
Mass. 523 ; Langmaid v. Reed, 159 Mass. 409 ; Neivton v. Joyce, 
166 Mass. 83. 

Persons whose property is affected by such restrictions have no 
right to compensation, because one of the incidents to property is 
a condition that it shall not be so used as unreasonably to impair 
the interests of the community. See Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 
160 Mass. 157. 

Similar acts have generally been upheld. In ex parte Casinello, 
62 Cal. 538, an ordinance giving the superintendent of streets 
power to determine where on private laud rubbish and broken 
crockery- ware might be dumped was declared valid ; so an ordi- 
nance prohibiting the beating of a drum on the streets without a 
permit, — re Flaherty, 27 L. R. A. 529 (Cal.) ; so a law declar- 
ing dense smoke a public nuisance was upheld on the ground that 
the public comfort was involved, it being immaterial whether such 
smoke was dangerous to health or to property, — Moses v. United 
States, 16 App. D. C. 428; likewise an ordinance that no person 
should blast rocks without a permit from the aldermen was sus- 
tained, — Commonioealth v. Parks, 155 Mass. 531; and a statute 
that no public bowling-alley should be open after six o'clock in the 
afternoon, — Commonwealth v. Colton, 8 Gray, 488. There is no 
vested right in individuals to be exempt from police regulations. 

It is to be speciall}^ noted that in other States advertising has 
been regulated throughout whole cities ; and the legislation has 
been, when attacked, sustained, on the ground that the views in 
a city, if beautiful and unobstructed, constitute one of its chief 
attractions, and in that way add to the comfort and well-being of 
its people. In re Wilshire, 103 Fed. Rep. 620; Rochester v. 
West, 164 N. Y. 510; The Gunning System v. Buffalo, N. Y. 
Supreme Court, App. Div. (Not yet published.) 
. It is, however, unnecessary, under the order of the Honorable 



14 ATTORNEY-GENEKAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

House of Representatives, to consider the power of the Legislature 
to restrict bill boards everywhere. For especial reasons, its power 
may be properly exercised in case of parks and boulevards. 

In Attorney- General v. Williams^ 174 Mass. 476, at 479, in 
discussing the well-established principle that the power of em- 
inent domain may be exercised for the sole purpose of educating 
the public taste, the court says: "The grounds on which public 
parks are desired are various. They are to be enjoyed by the 
people who use them. They are expected to minister, not only to 
the grosser senses, but also to the love of the beautiful in nature 
in the varied forms which the changing seasons bring. Their 
value is enhanced by such touches of art as help to produce pleas- 
ing and satisfactory effects on the emotional and spiritual side of 
our nature. Their influence should be uplifting, and in the high- 
est sense, educational. If wisely planned and properly cared for, 
they promote the mental as well as the physical health of the 
people. For this reason it has always been deemed proper to ex- 
pend money in the care and adornment of them, to make them 
beautiful and enjoyable. Their aesthetic effect never has been 
thought unworthy of careful consideration by those best qualified 
to appreciate it." 

Since the public good justified the spending of money to pro- 
duce an aesthetic effect, the court will not hold that a reasonable 
regulation to preserve the effect for which the public money was 
spent is beyond the power of the Legislature. 

The purpose of educating the public taste by means of parks 
being declared by the court a public one, and the Legislature being 
of opinion that the public comfort makes some regulation of the 
use of private property visible from them needful, the only limit 
upon the Legislature's power to regulate such use without com- 
pensation is that the regulation must not be clearly unreasonable. 
This bill does not authorize any except reasonable rules. It 
wisely leaves it to the local boards to formulate the rules, as these 
should vary according to the needs of the particular locality. 
Since it lies with the Supreme Court ultimately to determine 
whether any particular rule is reasonable, there can be no viola- 
tion of the constitution in this enactment. 

The Legislature may delegate to such boards power to make 
rules, and provide that they may be enforced by suitable penalties. 
This is not a delegation of the power to enact laws. It is merely a 
delegation of administrative powers and duties. See opinion of 
the Justices, 138 Mass. 601. 

A person who has a contract for advertising, which this enact- 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 15 

ment makes illegal, has no more sacred right to be immune from 
such regulations than the one who owns the property upon which the 
contract was to be performed. All contracts are subject to such ex- 
ercise of legislative power. See Salemy. Maynes^ 123 Mass. 372. 

Manifestly, neither party to such a contract, upon its becoming 
illegal by legislative enactment, can maintain an action against 
the other for its breach. See Hughes v. Wamsutta Mills, 11 
Allen, 201; Commo7iwealth v. Overby, 80 Ky. 208; Bailey v. 
De Grespigny, L. R. 4 Q. B. 180. 

In my opinion, therefore, in case this bill is enacted into law, 
neither owners of property affected thereby, nor persons having 
contracts for advertising prevented thereby from performing the 
same, would be entitled to compensation. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney-General. 



Metropolitan Water and Seiverage Board — Authority to install 

Meters. 

The Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board is authorized, under St. 

1895, c. 488, to install a system of meters for the purpose of securing 

a more efficient distribution of water to the communities which are 

supplied by it. 

April 10, 1902. 
Hon. Henry H. Sprague, 

Chairman, Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 

Dear Sir : — Your letter of April 7 requests my opinion whether 
your Board has power, under the water act, so called, to introduce 
meters by which the amount of water supplied to each municipal- 
il'J by your Board may be determined with reasonable accuracy ; 
and you further inform me that, in the opinion of your chief 
engineer, sufficient advantages will arise from the system of 
meters through the greater facilities afforded for detecting breaks 
and leakages, and for the more efficient maintenance and econom- 
ical administration of the work of distribution, to justify the nec- 
essary expenditure of money for that purpose. 

I reply that, such being the facts, in my opinion the statute 
creating your Board (St. 1895, c. 488) gives it authority, as inci- 
dent to the discharge of its prescribed duties, to install a system 
of meters to secure a more efficient distribution to the communities, 
and to ensure the proper conservation of the water which it is 
required to furnish them. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney -General. 



16 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Oleomargariiie — Label on Package. 

R. L., c. 56, §§ 36 and 48, relating to marks on wrappers in cases of the sale 
of oleomargarine or renovated butter, is sufficiently complied with if the 
individual packages containing such merchandise are plainly marked 
by labels setting forth the contents ; and where several packages, one 
of which contains oleomargarine, and is so marked, are enclosed in a 
common wrapper, it is unnecessary that such wrapper should also be 
labelled. 

April 11, 1902. 
George M. Whitaker, Esq., Agent, Dainj Bureau. 

Dear Sir : — I have your letters of April 7, in which, referring 
to sections 36 and 48 of chapter 56 of the Revised Laws, relating 
to marks on wrappers in cases of the sale of oleomargarine or ren- 
ovated butter, you ask my opinion, upon the assumption that two 
or more purchases are made at a store, and all packages are placed 
in an outside wrapper for the convenience of the customer in dimin- 
ishing the number of parcels, whether the law requires the distinc- 
tive mark on the outside of such parcel containing the specific 
parcels of merchandise which are themselves required to be labelled. 
You further inquire whether the law would be complied with if the 
required mark is on the outside of each of the individual packages 
within the package as finally made up for the convenience of the 
customer. 

I am of the opinion that the law does not require that the out- 
side of the parcel containing the several parcels of enclosed mer- 
chandise shall bear the specific label, if sifch be upon each of the 
parcels originally made up and delivered to the purchaser. Such 
delivery is, in my opinion, the delivery contemplated by the statute ; 
and if, after such delivery, the customer requests, and in compli- 
ance with such request, expressed or implied, the seller, as agent 
for the purchaser, makes up the larger bundle, such transaction is 
no part of the original delivery ; and, the law having been complied 
with as to each of the original packages, no further labels need be 
affixed by the seller. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 17 



Side Arms — Lithuanian St. Kaziner Beyiefit Society — Parade — 
Military Organizations . 

The Lithuanian St. Kaziner Benefit Society of Haverhill, a corporation 
organized under the general laws for purposes of benevolence and 
charity, is not within the provisions of R. L., c. 16, § 147, and may not, 
therefore, parade with side arms. In the absence of legislative enact- 
ment conferring the right to carry side arms, there is no authority 
adequate to grant such permission. 

R. L., c. 16, § 147, providing that " any organizations heretofore authorized 
thereto by law may parade with side arms," is not limited to military 
organizations, but includes any organization which has been so author- 
ized by law. 

April 11, 1902. 

Brig.-Gen. Samuel Dalton, Adjutant- General. 

Dear Sir : — I have received your communication of April 4, 
requiring my opinion upon the matter of the petition of Matieus 
Bunker, secretary of the Lithuanian St. Kaziner Benefit Society of 
Haverhill, that such society may be permitted to parade with side 
arms. It is stated that the society has been legally incorporated 
under the laws of this Commonwealth, and I assume that to be 
the fact. I am not advised, however, whether the society is so 
organized under the general laws, or by special charter. From 
the tenor of the allegations of the petition, however, I believe I 
may safely assume, for the purpose of my reply to you, that the 
society has no special charter, but is organized under the general 
laws as a corporation the purpose of which is benevolence and 
charity. I must, therefore, further assume that the society does 
not come within the provisions of R. L., c. 16, § 147, as having 
been heretofore authorized by law to parade with side arms. 

This question of express authority is a question of fact ; and, if 
it be true that the authority has heretofore been expressly given by 
law, there would be no further occasion to deal with your inquiries. 
If I am right in the assumption that no such express authority has 
been given, it is clear to my mind that no such authority exists, 
and you cannot confer it. 

You further inquire if permission can be given to this society to 
parade with side arms, pending the enactment of law granting 
authority to do so. The very suggestion that the society is await- 
ing the enactment of some law giving it the authority it desires, 
makes it apparent that no such authority now exists, and may not 
be granted ; so that here, again, in my opinion, you are precluded 
from giving the desired permission. 

In answer to your third inquiry, I have to say that I am of the 
opinion that permission to parade with side arms must be conferred 



18 ATTORNEY-GENEEAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

by legislative enactment. In the absence of such provision, there 
is no other authority adequate to give the permission sought for. 

In answer to the fourth inquiry, I have to say that, if this society 
has petitioned the Legislature for an enactment giving it the 
authority it desires, the pendency of such act would require the 
society to await the will of the Legislature. 

Your last inquiry I understand to be in effect a question whether 
the act which recites that " any organization heretofore authorized 
thereto by law " applies exclusively to military organizations, or 
extends as well to any association, military or otherwise. I be- 
lieve that the words are to be taken in their more comprehensive 
meaning, and to refer to any organization whatever which has been 
so authorized by law. Of course the statutes giving such author- 
ity by their very terms define the organization to which the au- 
thority extends ; and it would be necessary to examine each of 
such statutes, to ascertain the extent of the authority thereby 

granted. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board — Duty to x)rovide for 
Existing Pipe Lines — Report of State Board of Health for 
1895 — Alterations in Direction of Pipe Lines — Excavations 
in Streets — City Ordinances. 

1. Under the provisions of St. 1895, c. 488, the Metropolitan Water and 

Sewerage Board has authority to alter the courses or directions of 
pipe lines which such statute requires it to construct, even if such 
alterations are in detail at variance with the scheme suggested in out- 
line by the report of the State Board of Health for 1895, therein re- 
ferred to. 

2. A provision in the charter of the city of Newton, that no public street 

shall be dug up without first obtaining the written approval of the 
mayor, cannot be construed to impose a restriction upon the Metro- 
politan Water and Sewerage Board, acting for and in behalf of the 
Commonwealth in the prosecution of the work authorized by St. 1895, 
c. 488. 

3. In laying pipes the Board must have regard to existing pipes or con- 

duits in the streets, and to any definite existing plan for the future 
construction of additional pipe lines by the city ; but it cannot bind 
itself to make provision for pipes not now in existence nor a part of 

any adopted plan. 

April 12, 1902. 
Hon. Henry H. Sprague, 

Chairman, Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 

Dear Sir : — I beg to acknowledge your communication of 
April 4, asking my opinion as to the rights and powers of the 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 19 

Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board in laying and maintain- 
ing pipe lines in the streets of the city of Newton. Your commu- 
nication informs me that the pipe lines intended to be laid are 
extensions of the Weston aqueduct from its end in Weston near 
the Charles River to the Chestnut hill reservoir, through portions 
of the metropolitan district in which Newton is included. 

By section 3 of chapter 488 of the Acts of the year 1895, the 
Board was required to construct a system of metropolitan water 
works substantially in accordance with the plans and recommenda- 
tions of the State Board of Health contained in their report of the 
year 1895. The building of this Weston aqueduct was a part of 
the general scheme so recommended by the State Board of Health, 
though its immediate construction was postponed. The report of 
the State Board of Health refers to the necessity of the Weston 
aqueduct, and of pipes to be laid from it through the metropolitan 
district. Estimates were also given of the cost of this aqueduct 
and for laying pipes therefrom, some to be constructed within the 
first ten years, others within the second ten years. Mr. Stearns, 
the chief engineer for the Board, in his accompanying report gave 
a. description of this Weston aqueduct, and spoke of the pipe lines 
to be laid as not being carefully located. A map which was sub- 
mitted with the report shows two proposed pipe lines, and at the 
time it was suggested by the chief engineer that an aqueduct would 
be substituted for a part of the distance for one of these lines, which 
nt present it is not proposed to build. 

The pipe line about to be laid, and concerning which question is 
now raised by the mayor of Newton, runs through Auburndale and 
Commonwealth Avenue extension (which was not built at the time 
of the report of the State Board referred to) to the Chestnut Hill 
reservoir, about midway between the two routes shown on the 
map. 

The mayor of the city of Newton appears to base his objection 
to the prosecution of this work by the Commonwealth on the fol- 
lowing grounds : — 

First. — That the charter of the city of Newton, chapter 1, sec- 
tion 31 (Acts of 1897, c. 283), provides that no pubhc streets 
shall be dug up without first obtaining the written approval of the 
mayor. No person or corporation, except officers and employees 
of the executive departments, shall dig up any public street with- 
out first furnishing to the street commissioner sufficient security 
for restoring such street to a condition which shall be satisfactory 
to said commission, and for keeping the street in such condition 
for six months after the completion of the work. Under this pro- 



20 ATTORXEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

vision he is required to obtain security that the street and existing 
pipes therein will be left in as good condition and as accessible as 
before the work was done ; it having been the custom for a con- 
tractor, corporation or department opening the streets to pay to 
the street department the cost of restoring and maintaining the 
same for a reasonable term, the street commissioners doing the 
work and becoming responsible therefor. The maj^or, therefore, 
as I am informed, demands that, before approving the projected 
work of the Metropolitan Board, security for the sum of $23,225, 
the estimated cost of restoring the streets to a satisfactory condi- 
tion, shall be given by that Board. 

Second. — I am informed that the mayor contends that the 
report of the State Board of Health for 1895, and chapter 488 of 
the Statutes of 1895, did not contemplate such use of the public 
streets as that now proposed by your Board, and asserts that 
the proposed future pipe line marked on Plan 6 in the report of 
the State Board of Health is shown through private land nearly the 
entire distance from the Weston aqueduct to the Chestnut Hill 
reservoir, while the line heading for Spot Pond does not pass 
through any part of the city of Newton ; contending, apparently, 
that the line of pipe proposed to be laid by the Metropolitan Water 
Board in the city of Newton is not described or set forth in the 
report of the Board of Health referred to in the metropolitan water 
act, and that, therefore, the laying of such pipe is beyond the 
power of your Board. 

Your Board desires the opinion of the Attorney-General upon 
the following question: "Is not the Board authorized, under the 
provisions of the act of 1895, to proceed to dig up public streets 
and lay pipes in them as proposed, notwithstanding, as suggested 
by the mayor, that ' the proposed future pipe line marked on Plan 
6 in this report is shown through private land nearly the entire 
distance from the Weston aqueduct to Chestnut Hill reservoir, 
while the line heading for Spot Pond does not pass through any 
part of the city of Newton? ' " 

I understand this inquiry is directed to the question whether the 
laying of this line of pipe in the city of Newton not upon the 
actual lines laid down in the original report of the Board of Health 
is within the power of your Board ; and in effect, as I understand 
it, you inquire whether the Board is bound to rigidly follow the 
precise letter of the plans of the Board of Health referred to in 
the original act. 

Reference to the provisions of this act (section 3) seems to me 
to conclusively answer this inquiry to the effect that your Board is 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCIBIENT — No. 12. 21 

required only to construct a system of work in substantial accord- 
ance with the plans and recommendations of the State Board of 
Health. The Legislature did not intend to restrict your work to 
any precise plan. Much of the detail of location and construction 
had necessarily to be left to the discretion of the Board, and to be 
determined by conditions that could not have been foreseen and 
prescribed by precise legislation. I entertain no doubt that, under 
the provisions of the metropolitan water act, your Board has power 
to alter the courses or directions of pipe lines, even if such altera- 
tions shall be at variance in detail with the scheme suggested in 
outline by the report of the Board of Health. The Board must 
follow the general recommendations of that report, but is not 
inflexibly bound by intimations and suggestions set forth in that 
report ; for they do not and were never intended to have, in my 
opinion, the effect of an absolute and fixed plan. I am, then, of 
the opinion that the proposed pipe line through the city of New- 
ton, according to the present plan of your Board, may be lawfully 
laid and maintained under the authority vested in your Board by 
the Legislature. 

Upon the second inquiry you submit to me, I am of the opinion 
that the provisions in the charter of the city of Newton, which 
have been referred to, cannot be construed to impose a restriction 
upon the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board, which acts for 
and in behalf of the Commonwealth in the prosecution of a work 
authorized by the Legislature. Section 9 of chapter 488 of the 
Statutes of 1895 provides that the Board, in carrying out the 
powers and duties conferred upon them, '* may carry and conduct 
any aqueduct, conduit, pipe, drain or wire, under or over any water 
course or any railroad, street or other way, in such manner as not 
unnecessarily to obstruct or impede travel thereon ; may dig up 
any such road, street or way, and lay, maintain and repair aque- 
ducts, conduits, pipes, wires and other works beneath the surface 
thereof, conforming to any reasonable regulation made by the 
mayor and aldermen of cities and the selectmen of towns, respec- 
tively, wherein such works are performed, and restore, so far as 
practicable, any such road, street or way to as good order and con- 
dition as the same was in when such digging was commenced." 

In conferring such authority upon the Water Board, the Legis- 
lature could not have intended or contemplated that its exercise 
should be made dependent upon the action of the mayor of any 
city, in the absence of express enactment to that effect ; for, were 
the operations of the Board subject to such a possible contingency, 
it is clear that it would have been possible for municipal author- 



22 ATTORXEY-GEXEilAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

ities to have prohibited the prosecution of the work, or to have so- 
impeded it as to impose great expense and delay upon the Com- 
monwealth. 

The provision of section 9, above referred to, requiring that the^ 
work shall conform to reasonable regulations made b}^ the mayor 
and aldermen of cities wherein such works are performed, and 
restoring, so far as practicable, the way in the condition it was in 
when such digging was commenced, is to be construed as confined 
to rules and regulations attendant upon the progress of the work^ 
and consequent upon it. These regulations are not conditions 
precedent, but conditions attendant ; and require merely that the 
work, as it proceeds, shall be conducted conformably to reasonable 
regulations of the local authorities. The obligations imposed by 
the statute upon your Board to ensure proper prosecution of the 
work and restoration of the streets and ways are as effective, 
efficient and far-reaching, and, indeed, are almost in the same 
language, as the requirement which the statute authorizes a munic- 
ipality to impose where the digging of streets is to be done by any 
party other than the Commonwealth. Where the Commonwealth 
has imposed upon itself the obligation of restoring the streets to 
their original condition, no ground exists, in my judgment, for the 
contention that, its agents, in carrying out the work so entrusted to 
them, can be required to give security for an obligation w^hich the 
Commonwealth has declared it has assumed. The State can be 
required to give no bond to her own citizens. 

Your third inquiry is stated as follows: " The city of Newton 
has constructed surface drains along one side of the Commonwealth 
avenue extension, where it is proposed to lay the pipe line, and 
provides for connection with the other side of the avenue at the 
entrance of several of the side streets. The Board would make 
proper provision for all such system of drains already laid. Can 
the city of Newton compel it, in addition, to deposit money or 
sive bond or aajreement for the construction of additional cross- 
drains in future years, when additional streets not now laid out 
are built?" 

In my opinion, the city of Newton can require no bond, obliga- 
tion, promise or agreement from the Commonwealth in any event. 
In laying its pipes, the Metropolitan Water Board must have 
regard to the existing pipes or conduits in the street, and as well 
to any definite or adopted plan for future construction of the 
city's pipes. It cannot now make provision, nor can it bind itself 
or be bound to make provision for pipes not now in existence, nor 
a part of any known or adopted plan. If in the future some new 
scheme and new system of pipes be adopted and laid by the city of 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 23 

Newton, they must be so adopted and laid with regard to the con- 
duits of the Commonwealth, then existing by lawful right and by 
priority of location. 

I have endeavored to clearly answer your several inquiries. If 
I have failed to do so, I will advise you further. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney-General. 



Member of Congress — Fifty-seventh Congress — Vacancy — Resig- 
nation — Formal Notice — Governor. 

After the repeal of St. 1891, c. 396, by St. 1901, c. 511, providing for the 
election of Representatives in the Fifty-eighth Congress, and in each 
subsequent Congress until otherwise provided by law, no act remains 
in force by which the Commonwealth is divided into districts for the ' 
choice of Representatives in the Fifty-seventh Congress ; and when a 
vacancy occurs in the representation of any district for such Congress, 
legislative action is necessary to authorize the election of a successor. 

The governor can have no official knowledge of the resignation of any Rep- 
resentative in Congress from the Commonwealth, or of any purpose 
of such member to retire, until formal notice of the resignation has 
been received by him. 

April 15, 1902. 

To His Excellency W. Murray Crane, Governor. 

Sir: — You require my opinion as to the necessity or advis- 
ability of new legislation to provide for the election of a successor 
to the Hon. William H. Moody, Congressman for the sixth dis- 
trict, in case of his resignation before the expiration of the term 
for which he was elected. 

Chapter 396 of the Acts of 1891 divided the Commonwealth into 
districts for the choice of Representatives in Congress. Under this 
act, the sixth district, now represented by Mr. Moody, was created 
and continued until a reapportionment should be made, or there 
should be legislation repealing or terminating this apportionment. 
By chapter 227 of the Revised Laws the above statute of 1891 was 
expressly repealed, taking effect Dec. 31, 1901. 

Chapter 511 of the Acts of the year 1901, enacted June 14, 
1901, and now embodied in section 422 of chapter 11 of the 
Revised Laws, divides the Commonwealth into districts for the 
choice of Representatives in Congress, the language being: "For 
the purpose of electing representatives in the fifty-eighth congress 
of the United States, and in each subsequent congress, until other- 
wise provided by law, the commonwealth shall be divided into," 
etc. It thus appears that the new districts so created and elections 
pursuant thereto are confined to membership in the Fifty-eighth 
Congress. The old districts in which elections to the Fifty-seventh 



24 ATTOENEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Congress were or could be made no longer exist, by reason of the 
repeal by the Revised Laws, above cited. 

In case a vacancy occurs in the representation of any district 
for the Fifty- seventh Congress, it is my opinion that it is necessary 
to fill such vacancy during the continuance of the Fifty-seventh 
Congress, and by an election to take place in the district consti- 
tuted for the election of members to that Congress. It is apparent 
that there is now no act in force by which the Commonwealth is 
divided into districts for the election of members in the existent 
Congress, or providing for any election of members except for the 
Fifty-eighth Congress not yet convened or in existence. 

If it be deemed advisable that a successor be appointed to a 
member resigning from the Fifty-seventh Congress it seems that 
legislative action must be taken to provide for the election of such 
successor. It should be, in my opinion, in substance as follows, 
its caption being, ' ' An act to repeal an act repealing the provisions 
of chapter 396 of the Acts of the year 1891, entitled, 'An act to 
divide the Commonwealth into districts for the choice of represent- 
atives in the Congress of the United States.'" "Section 1. So 
much of chapter two hundred and twenty-two of the Revised 
Laws as repeals chapter three hundred and ninety-six of the acts 
of the year eighteen hundred and ninety-one is hereby repealed, 
and said chapter three hundred and ninety-six of the acts of the 
year eighteen hundred and ninety-one is hereby revived, and shall 
continue in full force and effect for the purpose of electing repre- 
sentatives to the Congress of the United States, to fill any vacan- 
cies that may occur from death, resignation or otherwise in the 
Fifty-seventh Congress of the United States, but for no other 
purpose." " Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its 
passage." 

In answer to the further inquiry of Your Excellency, I am of 
the opinion that Your Excellency can have no oflScial knowledge 
of a resignation of any Representative in Congress from the 
Commonwealth, or of any purpose of such member to so retire, 
until official notice of the resignation has been received by Your 
Excellency. Formal notice from the sitting member, either of his 
actual resignation or of his definite and fixed purpose to resign, 
stating the time when such resignation shall take effect, is a neces- 
sary precedent to any action to be taken by Your Excellency for 
the purpose of providing for or filling such vacancy. 

I have the honor to be, with great respect, 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 25 



Civil Service — Executive Clerks or Secretaries in Divisions of the 
Street Departments of the City of Boston . 

Officers to be appointed as executive clerks or secretaries in tlie several 
divisions of the street department of the city of Boston, whose duties 
will be to arrange for hearings and other matters, and, in general, to 
take charge of the business of such divisions, and to stand in the 
places of the deputy superintendents during their absence, such posi- 
tions involving some incidental clerical work as well, are within 
Schedule A, Class 2, of Rule VIL of the civil service rules, and must 
be selected in accordance with such rules. 

April 21, 1902. 
Hon. Charles Theodore Russell, 

Chairman, Board of Civil Service Commissioners. 

Dear Sir : — I have had uDcler consideration your inquiry of 
March 21 , relating to the status of proposed officers to be appointed 
as executive clerks or secretaries, to have charge of the several 
offices under divisions of the street department of the city of Bos- 
ton, when the deputy superintendent of such department is absent ; 
the general duties of such proposed appointees being, as stated to 
me, to arrange for hearings and other matters, and, in general, to 
take charge of the business of the office, and stand in the place 
of the deputy superintendent during his absence, and arrange and 
keep run of the business of the division, — being responsible and 
answerable to him, — the work of such appointees involving some 
incidental clerical duty. It is further suggested that the position 
is, of necessity, a confidential one in its relation to the deputy 
superintendents. 

I assume the duties to be discharged by the proposed officers are 
aptly described as above, and I am of opinion that thej^ fall within 
the civil service law, and that such officers must be appointed under 
its requirements. I assume that the city, or its executive, has 
authority to create, and, adhering to the civil service rules, to 
appoint and employ, such officers. 

I am of the opinion that the proposed office falls within Schedule 
A of Class 2 of Rule VII. of classification of service by your com- 
mission. It seems to me that it is within the definition of " clerk " 
or '' agent," or a person rendering service similar to that of clerk 
or agent. It is possible that the office would be within the classi- 
fication of Class 12 of Schedule B, as being that of an assistant 
superintendent or assistant deputy ; but it is clear to my mind that, 
under the statement of the duties of the office, as submitted to you, 
the incumbent could not be held to be a chief superintendent, and 
therefore not within the exception in Class 12. 



26 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

I note the suggestions of the superintendent of streets, accom- 
panying his inquiry, caUing attention to the fact that, as the pro- 
posed officer must perform certain executive duties, have charge of 
the business of the office and stand in the place of the deputy 
during his absence, he must hold a relation of trust and confidence 
to his chief ; and that therefore the civil service rules ought not to 
apply. 

I cannot bring myself to this position, and, indeed, it seems to 
me to be untenable in view of the express adjudication of the 
Supreme Court in the case of Attorney- General v. Trehy, 178 Mass. 
186, 193, where the court distinctly holds that the existence of a 
confidential relation between the chief and the subordinate does 
not preclude the position from being classified as one to be filled 
under the rules of the Civil Service Commission ; it being further 
held that the statute leaves to the commissioners power, in their 
judgment and discretion, to require offices involving confidential 
relations between the incumbent and his superiors to be filled under 
the rules, or to so classify them that they will be free from such 
rules. It seems to me that the offices in question have been so 
classified by the commission as to bring them within the definition 
of Schedule A, Class 2, Rule VII. 

I therefore advise you that, in my opinion, if the proposed 
offices are created and appointments made thereto, they must be 
made pursuant to the rules of the civil service department. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Civil Service — Deputy Street Commissioner of the City of Lynn 
— Chief Superintendent , 

An official designated as the " deputy street commissioner of Lynn," who 
is appointed by the board of public works, an elective board created 
by the revised city charter of Lynn (St. 1900, c. 367), having charge, 
subject to the direction of the city council, of all streets and ways, 
sidewalks, bridges and sewers, the supervision of wires, street light- 
ing and street watering, and the supervision and care of all public 
buildings, is not a chief superintendent of any department, since he 
does not represent such Board throughout its jurisdiction, and he is 
therefore subject to the civil service rules. 

April 22, 1902. 

Hon. Charles Theodore Russell, 

Chairman, Board of Civil Service Commissioners. 

Dear Sir: — Your letter of March 21 requests m}^ opinion 
whether the position of an officer designated "deputy street com- 
missioner of Lynn " is within the classified service. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 27 

Under the revised city charter (St. 1900, c. 367), a board of 
public works is created, consisting of three members, elected by 
popular vote, which has charge, subject to the direction of the city 
council, of all streets and ways, sidewalks, bridges and sewers, 
the supervision of wires, street lighting and street watering, and 
the direction and care of all public buildings. 

This board has appointed an officer, called a deputy street com- 
missioner, to act as its executive officer, directly responsible to it 
in taking charge of the streets and ways of the city, with the 
duties which generally belong to the position of a city superin- 
tendent of streets. The question is, whether he is to be appointed 
in accordance with the civil service rules. Plainly, he is a super- 
intendent within Class 12 of Schedule B, and must be so appointed, 
unless the position comes within the saving clause of that class 
which exempts the chief superintendent of a department. 

If this officer represented the board of public works in every 
branch of its authority, he might be the chief superintendent of its 
department. He represents the board, however, only in its con- 
trol of streets and ways. Therefore, the question is, whether the 
division of streets and highways, being the division of municipal 
affairs, usually controlled by a superintendent of streets, but in Lynn 
under the general charge of the board of public works, is a depart- 
ment within Class 12 of Schedule B. In other words, the question 
is, whether the board of public works may divide its department 
into various ^^ departments." 

Beginning with the highest, there are two departments in Lynn, 
the mayor and city council being one, the school committee the 
other. Probably, however, these are not the only departments 
intended in the rule. 

The charter further provides for administrative officers, includ- 
ing a board of public works (section 34, clause XII). This 
board, it seems to me, is in charge of a department. It has power 
to appoint all subordinate officers, clerks and assistants therein 
(section 38). A superintendent representing it throughout its 
jurisdiction might be the chief superintendent of a department. 

There is, however, no authority in the charter for the creation of 
a "department" by an administrative board, so that the board 
may be at the head of several departments at once. The city 
council may establish additional boards (section 34, clause XIII), 
and such a board, "having the charge of a department," may 
appoint subordinates. Thus the city council may create a new 
department, it seems, just as it may consolidate existing depart- 
ments. But if any department were at liberty to subdivide into 



28 ATTORXEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

*' departments" at its pleasure, it would be impossible to seta 
limit, defined b}^ law, to their number and to the number of chief 
superintendents. Subdivision might extend so far that each clerk 
would be the chief superintendent of his own department. In my 
opinion, the authority for subdivision must be found, if at all, in 
the charter or in the general provisions of law. I find no adequate 
authority, upon the conditions stated, for the appointment of the 
proposed officer except in accordance with the requirements of the 
civil service rules. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Gas Company — Incorporation — Purpose of Organization — 
Distribution of Gas to Public. 

An organization proposed to be Incorporated, for the purpose of manufac- 
turing and selling coke, tar, ammonia, gas and other products of coal, 
but with no intent or purpose to engage in the business of distributing 
gas to the public, may incorporate under the provisions of R. L., 
c. 110, § 5. 

May 1, 1902. 

Hon. William D. T. Trefry, Commissioner of Corporations. 

Dear Sir : — I beg to acknowledge your communication of 
April 3, requiring my opinion upon the question whether an organ- 
ization proposed to be incorporated " for the purpose of manufac- 
turing and selling coke, tar, ammonia, gas and other products of 
coal," but with no purpose or intent to engage in the business 
of distributing gas to the public (this limitation to appear in the 
articles of incorporation) , is to be considered a gas company within 
the meaning of section 9 of chapter 110 and of chapter 121 of the 
Revised Laws. 

In reply, I have to say that the provisions of chapter 110 and 
of chapter 121 of the Revised Laws do not necessarily apply to 
the same conditions ; and I am of the opinion that a corporation 
may be within the scope of chapter 121 as a gas company, though 
not organized under the provisions of section 9 of chapter 110. 
Having regard to the stated purpose of the proposed corporation, 
I am of opinion that it may be organized under section 5 of chap- 
ter 110, and that its purpose, as above stated, does not compel its 
organization under section 9 of the same chapter. 

I believe that I have thus answered the inquiry that you desired 
to submit to me. I may, however, supplement this statement by 
saying that I do not now pass upon the question whether this cor- 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 29 

poration, so organized under section 5, would or would not be 
subject to the supervision of the Gas Commission, under the pro- 
visions of chapter 121. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney-General. 



Insurance — Fraternal Beneficiary Corporation — Management of 
Funds — Supreme Lodge — Subordinate Organizations — By- 
laivs — Amendment. 

R. L., c. 119, regulating the conduct of business by fraternal beneficiary 
corporations, requires that the supreme lodge or council shall be re- 
sponsible for and have possession of the several funds provided for 
by law, and shall regulate the rates of assessments and the amounts 
of death or disability benefits to be paid, and a fraternal beneficiary 
corporation carrying on business under the provisions of such statute 
cannot amend its by-laws so as to provide that a member of the asso- 
ciation shall be entitled to a sick benefit to be paid by the subordinate 
lodge of which the holder of the certificate is a member, from funds 
collected by each subordinate lodge from its own members. 

May 2, 1902. 
Hon. Frederick L. Cutting, Insurance Commissioner. 

Dear Sir: — Your letter of December 17 requests the opinion 
of the Attorney-General upon the question of the legality of a pro- 
posed amendment to the by-laws of the Portuguese Fraternity of 
the United States, a fraternal beneficiary corporation doing busi- 
ness under the provisions of R. L., c. 119. 

The proposed change relates to the disability fund, and payments 
therefrom to persons entitled to receive "sick benefits." As at 
present constituted, the by-laws provide that the disability fund, 
for which provision is made in the statute, shall be paid to and in 
charge of the supreme lodge, which may authorize the subordinate 
lodges to retain a part of the receipts from disability assessments, 
and pay therefrom such disability benefits as are due to the mem- 
bers of the respective lodges, the supreme lodge collecting and 
holding the remainder of the fund for the use of the subordinate 
lodges which may be in need of assistance from it. The by-laws, 
as amended, are to provide that the members of the association 
shall be entitled to sick benefits, to be paid by the subordinate 
lodge of which the holder of a certificate is a member, from collec- 
tions made by each subordinate lodge from its own members. 

There are two grounds upon which the legality of this amend- 
ment may be questioned : first, upon the ground that the con- 
tractual relation between the corporation and the individual 



30 ATTORNEY-GENEKAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

members thereof will be impaired ; and, second, that the provisions 
of R. L., c. 119, regulating the conduct of business of fraternal 
beneficiary corporations, will be violated. 

The objection to the amendment founded upon contract presents 
no serious difficulty. The decisions of the courts have already 
sanctioned changes in the by-laws of such corporations at least as 
sweeping as those under discussion, from the point of view of the 
contractual relation existing between the corporation and its in- 
dividual members. Changes in the rates of assessment, when not 
in conflict with the by-laws, have been sustained (Messer v. the 
Ancient Order of United Workmen, 180 Mass. 321) ; and the 
corporation, if the by-laws permit, may even amend them so as to 
affect the rights of a member to future benefits under a disability 
existing at the time when the amendment is made. Fain v. 
Societe St. Jean Baptiste, 172 Mass. 319. See also Fullenweider 
v. Royal League, 180 111. 621. 

The proposed change may therefore be made under the power of 
amendment reserved in the by-laws " to adopt and to amend the 
constitution, laws and rules for its own government and member- 
ship and for the government of the members and lodges within 
such jurisdiction and control'' (By-laws, c. 1, § 1), without im- 
pairing any obligation of contract subsisting between the corpora- 
tion and its members. 

The second question, however, as to whether or not the proposed 
amendment is a violation of the provisions of R. L., c. 119, is not 
free from difficulty. A consideration of the by-laws of the Portu- 
guese Fraternity of the United States shows how important the 
matter is, and how far-reaching may be the ultimate outcome of 
such amendments ; for, if the corporation has the right to delegate 
the power of assessment for a disability fund, and the payment 
therefrom of sick or disability benefits to subordinate lodges or 
councils, leaving such organizations the right to regulate the terms 
and condition of such payments, it may also delegate to subordinate 
lodges the power to determine whether or not those bodies will pay 
any such benefit at all. Yet the statute contains no positive pro- 
hibition in relation to the division of the disability fund among 
the subordinate lodges, and the collection of assessments from, 
and payments of sick benefits to, its members by each separate 
lodge in the management of its disability fund. If it is prohibited 
at all, it is prohibited by implication. 

That the statute did not contemplate any such action by asso- 
ciations incorporated under its provisions, and that the result is 
contrary to the theory upon which the statute has grown up, is 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 31 

admitted ; but it is contended that, inasmuch as the corporation 
has the general right, incident to incorporation, to make by-laws 
not inconsistent with law, such inconsistency only arises where the 
action contemplated by the proposed amendment conflicts with 
some direct prohibition in the statute ; or, in other words, every- 
thing is permitted which is not expressly prohibited by some 
provision in the law (see R. L., c. 119, § 2). 

Whatever may be the force of this reasoning, it is clear that the 
determination of the question must depend upon the construction 
and scope of the power reserved to the corporation to make by-laws 
not inconsistent with law, and, in this case, not inconsistent with 
the provisions of R. L., c. 119. 

If such inconsistency can only arise upon a direct contravention 
of some express provision or prohibition in the statute, it may be 
admitted that the proposed amendment is not illegal. I am of 
opinion, however, that a broader definition of inconsistency must 
be applied than that above suggested. A by-law may be so framed 
as not to be in contradiction to any express provision of an act, 
and yet be so inconsistent with the whole spirit of the law as to 
render it an unlawful exercise of power on the part of the corpora- 
tion to adopt it. That such may be the case, even with regard to 
the contractual relation entered into b}^ the corporation with its 
individual members, is intimated by the court in Messer v. the 
Ancient Order of United Workmen^ above referred to: "It may 
be conceded that some amendments might be so foreign to the 
general scheme and purpose of the organization, and so contradict- 
ory to its fundamental law and the contracts made under it, as not 
to be within the power of amendment referred to ; but this is not 
true of an amendment which merely changes forms and methods, 
while the substance of the general plan and purpose of the organ- 
ization is preserved." 

Whether the amendment in question is so foreign to the general 
plan and purpose of the statute under which the Portuguese Fra- 
ternity is incorporated as not to be within the power of amendment 
reserved to the corporation, may be best determined by a consider- 
ation of the scope and intention of chapter 119. It was the evident 
purpose of the statute to place in the hands of the corporation as a 
whole the control and management of the death, disability and 
emergency funds provided for, together with the assessments there- 
for and the payments therefrom. Such funds are repeatedly referred 
to in the singular number, and provisions are made which could 
not conveniently apply if the disabihty fund were divided among 
the various subordinate lodges. " Section 4. Before such certifi- 



32 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

cate is granted, the corporation must present satisfactory evidence 
to the insurance commissioner that at least five hundred persons 
have each paid one advance assessment for its mortuary or dis- 
ability business or both, if such business is combined at its 
established rates," etc. "Section 7. A corporation . . . may 
hold as a death fund . . . not more than the amount of three 
assessments from a general or unlimited membership, or of three 
assessments from each limited class or division of its members ; 
and in addition thereto may create, collect, maintain, disburse and 
apply an emergency fund in accordance with its by-laws. . . . 
The emergency fund shall be used only for the payment of death 
or disability benefits." "Section 8. Death, disability and ex- 
pense assessments may be called together." Section 4, above 
stated, plainly sets forth the intention of the law that the Insurance 
Commissioner shall, through the corporation itself, have direct and 
restrictive control over the affairs and finances of the corporation, 
both as to mortuary and disabihty business. 

The statute further contemplated a corporation represented by a 
supreme lodge or council, composed of the officers and directors of 
the corporation and such representatives as the subordinate organ- 
izations might elect in accordance with the by-laws, which should 
be responsible for and have possession of the various funds pro- 
vided for by law, and should regulate the rates of assessment and 
the amounts of death or disability benefits to be paid. 

Under by-laws similar to those which the Portuguese Fraternity 
of the United States proposes to adopt, instead of a single corpo- 
ration which is responsible for and in possession of the disability 
fund, there are numerous separate and irresponsible bodies which 
control their respective funds, collecting assessments and paying 
the so-called " sick benefits" in such manner as they may see fit. 
The practical effect of such a condition is that the corporation, as 
represented by the supreme lodge, has delegated its entire powers 
with regard to the conduct of disability business to the subordinate 
organizations. Such a corporation could not conveniently make 
use of the emergency fund for the payment of disability benefits. 
It could not collect death, disability and expense assessments to- 
gether, and it would have made no adequate provision for the pay- 
ment of benefits in case of disability, as provided by section 6. 

The provisions regulating the management of the death fund 
clearly prohibit such a course with regard to that particular fund 
(sections 6 and 7), and it is admitted that such a by-law, if ap- 
plied to the death fund, is inconsistent with the provisions of the 
act. It is argued, however, that, because certain express provi- 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No, 12. 33 

sioDS are made in sections 6 and 7 for the collection, maintenance 
and disbursement of the death fund, which do not specifically 
extend to the disability fund, the respective funds are separable 
throughout the act, and that a disposition of the disability fund 
which would be clearly prohibited if attempted in the case of the 
death fund is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the 
statute if limited to the disability fund. 

Upon its face this contention has force, but it is, I think, refuted 
by consideration of the legislation on the subject. The statutes 
regulating this form of insurance, beginning with St. 1899, c. 442, 
did not establish death and disability business upon the same foot- 
ing. By far the more important of the two was the payment of 
death benefits, and disability benefits were merely an incident. It 
was therefore natural that careful provision should be made for the 
collection, maintenance and disbursement of the death fund ; while 
the disability fund, for payments which were incidental, was less 
carefully safeguarded, the idea being to keep on hand only suffi- 
cient funds to meet the claims as they arose (St. 1899, c. 442, 
§ 13). It was, however, found advisable, under later acts, to in- 
crease the amount to be kept on hand for the payment of disability 
benefits from the amount of one assessment to the amount of three 
assessments. The reason why no provision is made for the invest- 
ment of the disability fund appears to be that it is desirable, if 
not necessary, to keep such fund on hand to meet promptly the 
claims which may arise from time to time. For example : there 
are many more disability claims presented in winter than in sum- 
mer, owing to the greater prevalence of sickness in the former 
season, but by keeping a considerable amount in the disability 
fund, it is possible to equalize, to a great extent, the assessment 
during the different seasons. The reason why no provision is made 
as to the person to whom disability benefits shall be paid similar 
to those in section 6, with regard to death benefits, is clearly 
because they are paid to the person himself, who may thereafter 
dispose of them as he desires. 

For these reasons I am of opinion that no valid distinction can 
be drawn between the management of the death fund and the 
management of the disabilit}" fund, and that a disposition which is 
prohibited in the case of the former must also be held to be at 
least impliedly prohibited in the case of the latter. 

►Section 10 was also relied upon by the Portuguese Fraternity of 
the United States as supporting its position ; but I am of opinion 
that it not only lends it no support, but is in effect one of the 
strongest arguments against the proposed amendment. The pur- 



34 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



L' 



pose of that provision was to enable a Massachusetts corporation, 
which consisted of a grand lodge and subordinate lodges, to main- 
tain and continue their affiliation and relations with some supreme 
body, either incorporated or not, which was without the Common- 
wealth. The specific reason for its enactment was the conflict 
which arose in 1899 between the grand lodge of the Ancient 
Order of United Workmen, which was incorporated in Massachu- 
setts, and the supreme lodge of that order, which was at that time 
unincorporated, over an attempt by the latter to levy a war assess- 
ment upon the Massachusetts corporation. 

The language of the latter part of the section is significant. It 
provides, in effect, that a Massachusetts corporation may pay 
death benefits to or for the beneficiaries of deceased members 
holding benefit certificates issued not by such corporation, but by 
the supreme body or by one of the grand or subordinate bodies 
thereof, organized or incorporated elsewhere than in this Common- 
wealth. The section further provides : "But this authority shall 
not permit the payment of benefits other than those arising from 
death." As I understand it, this provision authorizes the corpo- 
ration to pay death benefit certificates which are not issued by the 
corporation itself, but by some organization which is a part of it 
or with which it is aflaiiated ; from which it is to be implied that, 
under the other provisions of the chapter, only certificates issued 
by the corporation can be paid by it. 

This authority is not extended in any case to the payment of 
certificates other than death certificates, and there can be no ques- 
tion as to the illegality of the payment by any organization of a 
disability certificate not issued by the corporation itself. 

The issuance of such a certificate implies an obligation to meet 
the payment thereof whenever it may fall due ; and this the cor- 
poration cannot assume under by-laws like those referred to, where 
the benefit business is entirely in the hands of individual subordi- 
nate lodges. It seems to me, therefore, that the legal and logical 
conclusion to be drawn from the requirement that the corporation 
shall issue benefit certificates is that it must also assume the obli- 
gation to provide for them ; and that the issuance of such certifi- 
cates can be made only by the corporation itself by the provisions 
of the statute ; that the responsibility of paying them when due 
is placed upon the corporation, and authority cannot be delegated 
by it to subordinate lodges to maintain funds, and to assume 
the responsibility of paying the disability certificates in such 
manner and to such extent as such subordinate lodges may them- 
selves determine. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 35 

Upon the whole, therefore, I am of opinion that the Insurance 
Commissioner cannot properly approve the proposed by-law of the 
Portuguese Fraternit}^ of the United States. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Feoffees of Grammar ScJiool in fyswich — Constitutional Laic — 
Vested Rights — Obligation of Contract, 

Under St. 1786, c. 54, making perpetual the agreement set forth in Acts of 
1765, c. 5, between the feoffees representing the original donors of land 
for a grammar school in Ipswich and the town of Ipswich, to the 
effect that four feoffees on behalf of private individuals, and the three 
selectmen of the town of Ipswich for the time being, on behalf of the 
town, should be incorporated feoffees in trust for the management of 
such school, the rights of each group of trustees became vested, as 
well as the rights of the beneficiaries under the trust; and a bill to 
increase to six the number of feoffees on the part of the town would 
be unconstitutional, as Impairing the obligation of the contract, and 
destroying vested rights without due process of law. 

May 3, 1902. 

Hon. George K. Tufts, Chairman, Committee on Education. 

Dear Sir: — In answering the inquiry of the committee on 
education whether House Bill No. 9ol, an act to increase the 
number of feoft'ees of the grammar school in Ipswich, would be 
constitutional, it seems proper to state briefly the facts of which I 
am informed. 

In 1650 the town of Ipswich granted to Robert Payne and 
others a tract of land for the use of school learning in the town 
forever. Certain citizens also dedicated land to the same purpose 
and in 1653 Robert Payne built an edifice for a grammar school at 
his own expense. In 1 683 Robert Payne, being the last survivor of 
the individual donors, gave a deed of the whole property to a 
committee and their successors in trust forever. Three of the 
committee were chosen by the town and two by himself. See 
Feoffees of the Grammar School in Ipsioich v. Andreivs^ 8 Met. 
584, 587. 

These trustees and their successors continued to act in the per- 
formance of their trust without interruption until 1720, when a 
difficulty arose with the town of Ipswich, which then for the first 
time laid claim to the land which it had deeded to Robert Payne as 
having reverted after the death of the original feoffees ; but the 
town lost the suit which it brought to recover the premises. 

In 1756 the town passed the following vote : — 



36 ATT(3RNEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Ipswich town-records, vol. 4, p. 153. Att a Meeting Of the Inhabi- 
tants of the Town of Ipswich by Adjournt January 22d 1756. Collo 
John Choate Esq. Moderator of the Meeting 

The Comtee Appointed on the Twelfth Inst to Confer with the Fe- 
oftees of the Grammar School in Ipswich Respecting the Management 
of the School Rents Reported that they had Agreed thereon and then the 
Town Came into the Following Vote. Vizt — 

Whereas the Town in Granting the School Farm att Chebbacco did 
not give those Persons to whose Trust they Committed the Improvement 
of Said Farm a power to Appoint Successors as the Private Persons who 
granted Lands in this Town for the Same use Did as Appears by Exam- 
ining the Respective Grant by which Means those Grants being Differ- 
ently Constituted and the Persons Instructed by the Town as Aforesaid 
being Long Since Dead Endless Disputes may Arise between the Town 
& Feoffees About the School (to the Support of which the whole Income 
if needed is to be Applyed) Unless Relief be had from the Generall 
Court and inasmuch as the Present Feoffees have Manifested there Agree- 
ment Thereto — 

" Voted That a Joynt Application be made to the Great and Generall 
Court to Obtain and Act if they See meet Fully to Authorize and 
Impower the Present Four Feoffees and Such Successors as they shall 
from time to time Appoint in their Stead together with the Three Edest 
Selectmen of this Town for the time being other than Such Selectman 
or men as may att any time be of the Four Feoffees To be A Committee 
in Trust the Major Part of whom to Order the Affairs of the School 
Land & School Appoint the Schoolmaster from time Demand Receive 
and Apply the Incomes Agreeable to the True Intent of the Donors No 
Feoffee hereafter to be Appointed by the Present Feoffees or by their 
Successors Other than an Inhabitant of this Town and not to Act after 
he Removes his Dwelling out of it and to have no more than Four att 
one time and Least any Unforeseen Inconvenience may happen in this 
Method it is agreed that the Act be only made for Ten Years att First. 

Attest 

Samuel Rogers T. Cler— 

As a result of the agreement expressed in this vote, the act of 
17-") 6, chapter 26, was passed, incorporating the seven feoffees, 
being four on the part of the original donors and three represent- 
ing the town. This act was an experiment, to be in force only for 
ten 3'ears. 

By the act of 1765, chapter 5, the Legislature, reciting that it 
had been found by experience that the previous act had been of 
great advantage to the interest of learning in the town, and that 
all doubts and disputes had ceased and the parties concerned de- 
sired the continuance of the act, provided that the four surviving 
feoffees on the part of the individual donors, together with the 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 37 

three selectmen at that time, should be incorporated feoffees in 
trust, and that the act should continue in force twenty-one years. 
Then, by St. 1786, c. 54, the Legislature provided that the act of 
1765 be made perpetual. 

Again disputes have arisen between the feoffees on the part of 
individuals and the town of Ipswich. The town has voted to in- 
crease its power in the corporation by adding three feoffees, that it 
may out-vote the representatives of the individual donors six to 
four, and applies to the Legislature for an act authorizing the 
change. 

In my opinion, the Legislature has no authority to pass the act 
in question. As a result of the agreement expressed in the vote 
of the town above recited, the original administration of the trust 
was materially changed. The balance of power was shifted from 
the town to the private feoffees, and this contract was made per- 
manent by the statute incorporating the seven feoffees. Under 
this act the rights of each group of trustees became vested, as 
also the rights of the beneficiaries under the trust ; and any gifts 
to the charity made thereafter were upon faith that the trust should 
be administered by trustees in behalf of each group of donors in 
those proportions. If the bill in question should be passed it 
would be void, as impairing the obligation of the contract and 
destroying vested rights without due process of law. See Trus- 
tees of Dartmouth College v. Woodioard^ 4 Wheat. 518; Allen 
V. McKeen^ 1 Sumn. 277; Broivn v. Hummel, 6 Pa. St. ^0; 
Cary Library v. Bliss, 151 Mass. 364. 

The principle is the same as if the Legislature were to deprive 
the town of its power in the management, or were to supplant the 
feoffees by a new committee. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



State Board of Health — Rules and Regulations for Protection of 
Water Su]iply — Publication — Expense. 

Under the provisions of R. L., c. 75, § 113, authorizing the State Board of 
Health to make rules and regulations to secure the sanitary protection 
of waters used as sources of water supply, it is the duty of such Board 
to cause the publication of such rules and regulations, and to meet all 

expenses incidental to such publication. 

May 13, 1902. 
Samuel W. Abbott, Secretary, State Board of Health. 

Dear Sir: — Replying to the inquiry of your Board under date 
of April 17,1 have to say that, in my opinion, the duty of pub- 



38 ATTORXEY-GEXEPvAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

lishing notice of rules established by 3^001* Board for the sanitary 
protection of the waters for the water supply of Taunton is imposed 
upon your Board ; it appearing that in the latter part of the year 
1901 the water commissioners of the city of Taunton petitioned the 
State Board of Health for the establishment of rules and regula- 
tions to prevent polhition and secure sanitary protection for the 
waters of the Lakeville ponds, they being the water supply of said 
city. After examination, a set of rules and regulations were pre- 
pared by the State Board ; and the question has now arisen whether 
the duty of publishing notice of such rules devolves upon the State 
Board of Health or upon the city of Taunton. 

The authority of the State Board in the premises is conferred 
by chapter 75, section 113, of the Revised Laws, which is a sub- 
stantial re-enactment of chapter 510 of the Acts of 1897. Those 
provisions are that the State Board may cause examination of such 
waters (including streams and ponds used for water supply), to 
ascertain their purity and fitness for domestic use. The Board may 
further make rules and regulations to prevent the pollution and 
secure the sanitary protection of all such waters as are used as 
sources of supply. Presumably the water commissioners of 
Taunton petitioned the State Board under the provisions of this 
law. 

Section 114 of the Revised Laws, chapter 75, provides that the 
publication of an order, rule or regulation made by the Board 
under the provisions of section 113 is to be made in a newspaper 
published in the city or town in which such order is to take effect ; 
or, if there be no newspaper so published, a copy of the order is to 
be posted in some public place in such city or town ; and that such 
publication shall be legal notice to all persons. An affidavit thereof 
is to be made by the person causing such publication, and is to be 
filed and recorded in the office of the clerk of the city or town, and 
such affidavit is to be admitted as evidence of the time, place and 
manner in which the notice is given. 

Section 116 of chapter 75 provides that said Board may appoint, 
employ and fix the compensation of such agents, clerks, servants 
and assistants as is considered necessary ; and further provides 
that such agents and servants shall cause the provisions of law 
relative to the pollution of water supplies and of the rules and reg- 
ulations of the Board to be enforced. 

Section 1 1 7 of the same chapter provides, among other things, 
that no person shall be required to bear the expense of consulta- 
tions with or advice or experiments of the State Board in this 
connection. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No, 12. 39 

The making and promulgation of rules and regulations for the 
protection of a water supply is a part of the duty of the State 
Board, and may be invoked by municipalities for their protection. 
Section 113, before referred to, provides that the Board may make 
rules and regulations to prevent the pollution and to secure the 
sanitary protection of such waters. The making and promulgation 
of these rules is plainly an incident to secure such protection, and 
is a necessary preliminary to their enforcement. 

For these reasons I have reached the opinion which I have above 
stated, to the effect that the State Board should, under the circum- 
stances, secure the publication of the rules and regulations made by 
them in the premises ; and that this duty does not devolve upon 
the municipality, nor should an}^ expense incident thereto be charged 
to the city. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney -General. 



Massachusetts Agricultural College — Fancl derived from Proceeds 
of Sale of Public Lands — Payment of Interest by Common- 
vjealth. 

The obligation imposed upon the Commonwealth by St. 1863, c. 166, 
accepting the provisions of the United States statute of June 2, 1862 
(12 U. S. St., c. 130), to pay to the Massachusetts Agricultural Col- 
lege interest upon the fund derived from the proceeds of the sale of 
public lands as therein provided, requires the Commonwealth to pay 
only such rate of interest as it is reasonably able to obtain by the 
investment of such fund in safe securities. The whole amount of such 
interest, once accrued, must be paid without diminution to such 
college. 

May 21, 1902. 
Hon. Henry E. Turner, Auditor. 

Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion whether, in view 
of the United States statute of July 2, 1862 (12 U. S. St., c. 130), 
and the Massachusetts statute of 18G3, chapter 166, accepting 
the provisions of the federal statute, the Commonwealth must 
pay to the Massachusetts Agricultural College interest upon the 
fund therein described at the rate of five per cent., or only at such 
rate as it is possible to obtain. 

By the statute above cited the United States government granted 
to the Commonwealth public lands upon condition that all moneys 
derived from their sale were to be invested in safe stocks, yielding 
not less than five per cent, on the par value, the money so invested 
to constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of which should remain 



40 ATTORXEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

forever UDcliminished, the interest to be inviolably appropriated to 
the endowment of an agricultural college. The act further pro- 
vided as follows : "If any portion of the fund invested or any 
portion of the interest thereon shall, by any action or contingency, 
be diminished or lost, it shall be replaced by the state, so that 
the capital of the fund shall remain forever undiminished, and the 
annual interest shall be regularly applied without diminution to the 
purposes named." This statute w^as accepted by the Massachu- 
setts statute of 1863, chapter 166, and the beneficiary of the fund, 
the Massachusetts Agricultural College, was incorporated by St. 
1863, c. 220. I am informed that an investment of the fund at 
so high a rate of interest has now ceased to be possible. 

In the first place the question arises whether the following pro- 
vision by itself requires the Commonwealth to pay five per cent, at 
all events: " If any portion of the fund invested or any portion 
of the interest thereon shall by any action or contingency be 
diminished or lost, it shall be replaced by the state, so that the 
capital of the fund shall remain forever undiminished." I believe 
that this applies only to a loss of interest which has accrued, — 
not to a diminution in the rate of interest. This is indicated by 
the language, "any portion of the interest." Neither is there 
anything in the language which follows, " the annual interest shall 
be regularly applied without diminution to the purposes named," 
to indicate a guaranty that the rate shall not be diminished. 

The vital question arises upon the provision that all moneys are 
to be invested in safe stocks, yielding not less than five per cent, 
upon the par value. Naturally, this refers not only to the original 
investments, but, in general, to reinvestments. 

It is possible to construe this as a condition that the Common- 
wealth shall forever invest the fund at five per cent., or pay the 
difference to the college ; but, in my judgment, this is not its true 
construction. Even if it were an ordinary contract, in which a 
trustee agreed in similar terms to invest a fund, a fair interpreta- 
tion of his obligation would not be that he insured forever the sta- 
bility of high rates of interest. Without express language, one 
who engages to deliver a specific article does not insure its con- 
tinued existence, nor does any contractor warrant the permanence 
of the existing law. Butterjield v. Byron, 153 Mass. 517; Hoiv- 
ell V. Coupland, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 258; Stewart v. Stone, 127 
N. Y. 500 ; Baily v. De Crespigny, L. K. 4 Q. B. 180. Upon sim- 
ilar grounds, it is not a reasonable construction of such trustee's 
contract to say that he guarantees that the business conditions of 
the last generation shall persist. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 41 

In the present case such a construction is even less to be accepted. 
The obligation of the Commonwealth is not expressed in its own 
language, but by the acceptance of a grant with a condition 
annexed. If doubt existed as to the reasonable construction of 
the condition, it should be resolved in favor of the Commonwealth. 

For the above reasons, I am of opinion that the Commonwealth 
is required to pay only such rate of interest as it is reasonably able 
to obtain by investment in safe securities, and that the whole of 
such interest, once accrued, is to be regularly applied without 
diminution to the Agricultural College. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney-General. 



Militia — Naval Brigade — Citiefi and Towns — Duty to famish 
Accommodations for Boats and Equipment. 

R. L., c. 16, § 105, makes it the duty of cities and towns within the limits 
of which portions of the volunteer militia are located, to provide 
suitable accommodations for the equipment necessary to- secure the 

^ proper efficiency of such militia; and, if an existing armory is not 
adequate for the storage of boats and other equipment used by a com- 
pany of the Naval Brigade, a recognized part of the militia of the 
Commonwealth, quartered within any city or town, proper accommo- 
dations must be supplied by such city or town, either within the 
armory itself or by securing suitable buildings elsewhere. 

July 14, 1902. 
Maj.-Gen. Samuel Dalton, Adjutant-General. 

Dear Sir: — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your inquiry 
of June 19, relating to the duty imposed upon cities and to^NTas by 
the provisions of R. L., c. 16, § 105, of maintaining suitable 
armories for the volunteer militia for drill and for the safe-keeping 
of military property. 

The specific question upon which you desire my opinion is as 
follows: "The Naval Brigade being a part of that militia, and 
boat drills being an important part of their instruction, is it not 
incumbent, under the law, for cities and towns to provide suitable 
accommodations for the safe-keeping and storage of boats and 
equipment, by the erection of boat houses?" 

R. L., c. 16, § 105, provides: "The mayor and aldermen and 
selectmen shall provide for each regiment, battalion, corps of 
cadets, or portion of the volunteer militia, within the limits of their 
respective cities and towns, a suitable armor}^ for the purpose of 
drill and for the safe keeping of the arms, equipments, uniforms 
and other military property, suitable places for parade, drill and 



42 ATTOKNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

target practice ; and a suitable room for the headquarters located 
within their limits ,of each brigade, regiment, separate battalion or 
corps of cadets, for the keeping of books, the transaction of busi- 
ness and the instruction of officers, with necessary fuel and lights, 
or a reasonable allowance therefor, for each armory or headquarters 
located within their limits. Any city or town failing to comply 
with this section shall forfeit to the use of the commonwealth not 
more than five thousand dollars." 

This section expressly requires cities and towns to provide suit- 
able quarters for bodies of militia which may be within their re- 
spective limits; and, as the Naval Brigade forms a recognized 
part of the militia of the Commonwealth, it becomes the duty of 
cities and towns where portions of the Naval Brigade are located 
to furnish suitable accommodations for the equipment necessary to 
secure the proper efficiency of such militia. I am of opinion, 
therefore, that, if an existing armory is not adequate to store the 
boats and equipment used by a company of the Naval Brigade 
within the limits of any city or town, such accommodations must 
be provided either within the armory itself or by procuring suitable 
buildings elsewhere (1 Op. Atty.-Gen., 63). 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Corporation — Effect of Attempt to organize under Repealed 

Statute. 

An organization formed under the provisions of G. S., c. 61, subsequent to 
the repeal of such statute by St. 1870, c. 224, but not in compliance 
with the provisions of the existing law, is not a corporation existing 
by authority of the laws of this Commonwealth, and therefore is not 
subject to R. L., cc. 14, 109 and 110. 

Aug. 7, 1902. 

Hon. William D. T. Trefry, Commissioner of Corporations. 

Dear Sir: — In j^our letter of July 21 you ask whether the 
Hebron Manufacturing Company of Attleborough is a Massachu- 
setts corporation, and state the following facts : — 

Certain persons filed in the office of the town clerk of Attle- 
borough, Feb. 27, 1871, a sworn certificate, dated Feb. 22, 1871, 
of their organization as a corporation under the above name, "in 
pursuance of chapter 61 of the General Statutes and the acts in 
addition thereto." No certificate was filed in the office of the 
Secretary of the Commonwealth, and there is no evidence in his 
office, or in yours, that such a corporation has ever existed. The 
company has never made the returns required by law, and has 
never been taxed as a corporation. The only change in its status 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 43 

since the date of the certificate of organization is in the ownership 
of shares. It has kept up its organization by the election of offi- 
cers, and holds itself out to the public as being a corporation. 

Had these persons organized in the above manner prior to the 
repeal of chapter 61 of the General Statutes, probably they would 
be a corporation, notwithstanding their failure to comply with 
some of the directions in that chapter. See Merrick v. Reynolds 
Engine and Governor Company^ 101 Mass. 381. But on May 9, 
1870, this chapter of the General Statutes was repealed by St. 
1870, c. 224, which provided, in section 1, that the subscribers to 
a corporation agreement should become a corporation upon compl}^- 
ing with the provisions of section 1 1 . The latter section provided 
for a submission of the certificate of organization and the record 
to the inspection of the Commissioner of Corporations, and, upon 
his approval, required that the certificate be filed in the office of the 
Secretary of the Commonwealth. Since these requirements which 
the statute provided as express conditions to the creation of a cor- 
poration were not observed, I am of opinion that this company is 
not a corporation existing by authority of our laws, and is there- 
fore not subject to chapters 14, 109 and 110 of the Revised Law^s. 

Whether it is a de facto corporation I have not considered, 
because it is the duty of officials of the Commonwealth not to 
recognize as having corporate existence a body of persons against 
whom it may be expedient for the Commonwealth to proceed by 
quo warranto to oust them from the illegal enjoyment of corporate 

franchises. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 

f 



Metropolitan Park Commission — Police Jurisdiction over Road- 
ways and Boulevards — Local Police — Right of Entry. 

The poUce of any city or town have no authority to enter upon roadways 
or boulevards exclusively controlled by the Metropolitan Park Com- 
mission for the general purpose of maintaining the pubfic peace and 
order within the limits of such roadways or boulevards. The right of 
local officers of police to enter upon such premises is confloed to the 
pursuit and apprehension of persons who have committed a breach of 
any statute, ordinance or regulation within the limits of an adjacent 
city or town, and have taken refuge upon a roadway or boulevard con- 
trolled by such commission. 

Aug. 7, 1902. 

John Woodbury, Esq., Secretary, Metropolitan Park Commission. 

Dear Sir: — Your letter of July'14 requests my opinion as to 
the extent of the authority of the police appointed by a city or 



44 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

town within the limits of land taken by the Commonwealth for 
parkway or boulevard purposes in such city or town, under St. 
1894, c. 288, the so-called boulevard act. 

St. 1894, c. 288, § 3, provides as follows: " In furtherance of 
the powers herein granted said board may appoint clerks, police and 
such other employees as it may from time to time find necessary for 
the purposes of this act, remove the same at pleasure, and make 
rules and regulations for the government and use of the roa:dways 
or boulevards under its care, breaches whereof shall be breaches 
of the peace, punishable as such in any court having jurisdiction 
of the same ; and in addition said board shall have the same 
rights and powers and in regard to the roadways or boulevards 
taken and constructed hereunder as are or may be vested in them 
in regard to other open spaces b}^ said chapter four hundred and 
seven and acts in amendmeut thereof and in addition thereto, and 
shall have such rights and powers in regard to the same as, in 
general, counties, cities and towns have over public ways under 
their control ; provided, however, that nothing in this act contained 
shall be taken or held to affect or abridge the right of any city or 
town lying within said district to pursue and apprehend, as it law- 
fully may from time to time, any person or persons who commit 
within the limit of said city or town any breach of any statute, 
ordinance or regulation." 

St. 1893, c. 407, § 3, provides that the jurisdiction and powers 
of the park commission shall extend to and be exercised within 
the metropolitan parks district, the limits of which are therein 
defined. 

Section 4 authorizes the commission to preserve and care for the 
public reservations and open spaces established by it, and further 
provides that: "In furtherance of the powers herein granted, said 
board may employ a suitable police force, make rules and regula- 
tions for the government and use of the public reservations under 
their care, and for breaches thereof affix penalties not exceeding 
twenty dollars for one offence, to be imposed by any court of com- 
petent jurisdiction ; and, in general, may do all acts needful for 
the proper execution of the powers and duties granted to and 
imposed upon said board by the terms of this act." 

St. 1895, c. 450, §§ 7, 8 and 9, provide as follows: " Section 
7. Said commission shall publish the rules and regulations made 
by it from time to time. Said publication shall be made at least 
six times in at least three newspapers printed and published in 
each county which is wholly or in part within said metropolitan 
parks district, and such publication shall be sufficient notice to all 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xq. 12. 45 

persons. The sworn certificate of any member of said commission, 
or of its secretary, that said rules and regulations have been pub- 
lished as herein provided, shall be prima facie evidence thereof. 
A copy of said rules and regulations, attested by any member of 
said commission, or by its secretary, shall be prima facie evidence 
that said rules and regulations have been made by said commis- 
sion, as provided by law." "Section 8. Whoever violates any 
rule or regulation lawfully made by said commission shall be pun- 
ished by a fine not exceeding twenty dollars." " Section 9. The 
police appointed or emplo3^ed by said commission in accordance 
with the provisions of chapter four hundred and seven of the acts 
of the year eighteen hundred and ninety-three and chapter two 
hundred and eighty- eight of the acts of the year eighteen hundred 
and ninety-four shall have all the powers of police officers and 
constables for the maintenance of the public peace upon any lands, 
roadways or boulevards under its care, and upon any roadways 
passing through or bordering upon said lands." 

St. 1896, c. 465, § 1, provides that certain exceptions and 
reservations in takings by the Commonwealth shall be valid, 
effectual and binding; "but no such grant, agreement, license or 
arrangement shall be taken or held to abrogate or abridge the con- 
trol of said board over the land included in said taking except as 
in said exceptions and reservations provided, or the right of said 
board from time to time in its discretion to make rules and regula- 
tions for the government and use of any roadway, boulevard or 
crossway, which may at any time hereafter be laid out and main- 
tained over said land or over any portion thereof, not inconsistent 
with such exceptions and reservations." 

Section 2 provides : " Said commission is hereby authorized 
and empowered to transfer for care and control, including police 
protection, any lands or rights or easements or interest in land, 
although the same be a roadway or boulevard owned or controlled 
by it, to any city, town or county, or local board of a city or town 
within the metropolitan parks district, with the consent of such 
city, town, county or board, and upon such terms and for such 
period as may be mutually agreed upon, and to enter into an 
agreement with any such city, town or county or board for the 
joint care and control or police protection of said laud or boulevard, 
and also for laying out, constructing and maintaining streets or 
ways into or across any such land or boulevard ; and any city, 
town or county, or any local board within the metropolitan parks 
district, is hereby authorized and empowered to transfer for care 
and control, including police protection, any land, rights, ease- 



46 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

ments oi* interest in land in its control, although the same be 
already a part of a public street owned or controlled by it, to the 
metropolitan park commission for such period and upon such terms 
as may be mutually agreed upon, and to enter into an agreement 
with said commission for the joint care and control, including po- 
lice protection, of said land or street." 

St. 1897, c. 121, § 3, provides: " The police appointed or em- 
ployed by said commission, in accordance with the provisions of 
chapter four hundred and seven of the acts of the year eighteen 
hundred and ninety-three and chapter two hundred and eighty- 
eight of the acts of the year eighteen hundred and ninety- four 
and all acts in amendment thereof and in addition thereto, shall 
have within the metropolitan parks district all the powers of police 
officers and constables of cities and towns of this Commonwealth, 
except the power of serving and executing civil process, and when 
on duty may carry such weapons as said commission shall 
authorize." 

It is the clear intention of these statutes to vest in the metro- 
politan Park Commission the entire care and control of the 
premises taken for parks, reservations and boulevards, and to 
make the commission responsible for their preservation and for 
the maintenance of good order within their limits. With regard 
to parkways or boulevards, the commission are given all the 
powers vested in them in regard to open spaces by St. 1893, 
c. 407, and, in addition, such rights and powers with regard to the 
same as, in general, cities and towns have over public ways under 
their control. All rights and powers previously vested in cities 
and towns and in the officers thereof are taken away, and the 
entire control vested in the park commission (1 Op. Atty.-Gen., 
588, 590). Their authority over parkways and boulevards, 
therefore, would seem to be, from the language of St. 1894, 
c. 288, more extensive than that given them over open spaces 
taken for park purposes. 

As the Metropolitan Park Commission, by virtue of the statutes 
above quoted, is vested with the complete and exclusive care and 
control of the roadways, parkways and boulevards under its juris- 
diction, it is charged with the preservation of good order thereon, 
and may create and maintain a police force for the following pur- 
poses : — 

(1) To enforce the rules and regulations which the commission 
is authorized to establish over parkways and boulevards within its 
care and control. This enforcement is exclusively confided to the 
Metropolitan Park Commission, except where the commission has 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT— No. 12. 47 

transferred, under the provisions of St. 1896, c. 465, the care and 
control of such places to city or town authorities, or has entered 
upon an agreement with any city or town for the joint control 
thereof. 

(2) To maintain the public peace upon roadways or boulevards 
controlled by the commission, and upon any roadways passing 
through or bordering upon the same. The duty of enforcing the 
public peace upon such roadways or boulevards rests exclusively 
upon the commission, with the exception of the transfers or agree- 
ments provided for by St. 1896, c. 465; and the metropolitan 
police are vested with all the powers of police officers or constables 
(except that of serving civil process), for the purpose of perform- 
ing their duties not only upon the parkway itself, but throughout 
the metropolitan district (see St. 1897, c. 121, § 3). 

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the maintenance of the 
public peace and the enforcement of the rules and regulations es- 
tablished by the commission upon all roadways and boulevards 
controlled by them is entrusted solely to the commission, except in 
cases where such control is transferred to or shared with cities and 
towns under the provisions of St. 1896, c. 465 ; and that the local 
police of cities and towns have no authority to enter upon such 
roadways and boulevards for the purpose of maintaining the peace 
thereon. It should not be forgotten, however, that the city or 
town police are expressly authorized to enter upon such places for 
the purpose of pursuing and arresting persons guilty of offences 
committed within the limits of any city or town and without the 
limits of the jurisdiction of the commission. 

It follows, therefore, that the authority of the local police to 
enter upon roadways or boulevards exclusively controlled by the 
Metropolitan Park Commission is confined to the pursuit and 
apprehension of persons who have committed a breach of any 
statute, ordinance or regulation within the limits of an adjacent 
city or town, and have taken refuge upon such parkway or boule- 
vard ; and that they have no authority to enter upon such road- 
ways or boulevards for the general purpose of maintaining the 
public peace and order within the limits of the roadways and 
boulevards under the jurisdiction of the commission. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney - General . 



48 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Extradition — Governor — Executive Discretion — Expediency. 

The right of the Governor of this Commonwealth to consider questions of 
expediency or discretion exists only upon applications for requisition 
issuing from this Commonwealth, or upon demands for the extradition 
of persons held here in custody to answer for crimes against the Com- 
monwealth, or the United States, or by force of any civil process. 

Aug. 21, 1902. 
To His Excellency W. Murray Crane, Governor. 

Sir : — In the matter of the demand of the Executive of 
North Carolina for the extradition of Monroe Rogers, an alleged 
fugitive from the justice of that State, I have the honor to report 
that, in obedience to Your Excellency's direction, I have heard 
remonstrants to the honoring of this demand, and the fullest 
opportunit}^ has been given for the presentation of evidence and 
arguments in support of the contention raised in behalf of the 
alleged fugitive. 

I have to advise Your Excellency that, in my opinion, all the 
essential requirements establishing the validity as to matters of 
form and substance of the demand for extradition, with its accom- 
panying documents, are complied with, and are in accordance with 
the provisions of the Revised Statutes of the United States, § 5278. 

Learned counsel for the alleged fugitive contended that the 
application for extradition, with its various exhibits and docu- 
ments, was defective in form, and insufficient in respect to sub- 
stantive and necessary allegations of fact and law ; but, in my 
opinion, these contentions are not well founded, and must be over- 
ruled. If there be error in my conclusion, I am reassured, and 
the rights of the prisoner are amply protected, since he may invoke 
the aid of courts having competent jurisdiction, upon a writ of 
habeas corpus^ to review and revise this determination of issues of 
law. 

I am further forced to the conclusion that, under the provisions 
of the Constitution of the United States and the statutes founded 
thereon. Your Excellency is required to honor the requisition. 
The counsel and citizens who have interested themselves in the 
important considerations raised by this case very earnestly and 
forcibly urged, even insisted, that, under section 12 of chapter 217 
of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts, it is my duty, under the 
responsibility im^wsed upon me, to consider and advise Your Ex- 
cellency not only as to the law of the case, but, as well, as to the 
expediency of Your ^Excellency's favorable action upon the demand 
-of the Executive of North Carolina. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 49 

1 am of opiniou, however, that my investigation must be con- 
fined to the legal aspects of the case, and that Your Excellency's 
action must be controlled by the requirements of the Constitution 
and statutes of the United States, and that the Massachusetts 
statutes cannot be operative except in so far as is consistent with 
the federal law. Upon this view, the right of Your Excellency 
to consider questions of expediency or discretion exists only 
upon applications for requisition going from this Commonwealth, 
•or upon demands for persons held here in custody to answer for 
crimes against this Commonwealth, or the United States, or by 
force of any civil process. 

These considerations seem to me conclusive, and require that 
Your Excellency honor the requisition from North Carolina. 

Giving the widest latitude to the inquiry upon this issue of 
expediency or discretion raised by the respondent, and for the 
purpose of giving full consideration to the question of the right of 
Your Excellency to exercise discretion in your official action, I 
heard arguments and statements tending, as the remonstrants 
claimed, to justify or to require Your Excellency, upon this issue 
of expediency or discretion, to refuse the rendition of the prisoner 
upon extradition. The remonstrants offered as evidence printed 
statements from newspapers published in southern States and in 
the State of North Carolina, and declarations made upon hearsa}^, 
tending to show that mob violence prevailed in that State to such 
an extent and so universally as to compel the conclusion that no 
negro accused of crime could or would have a fair trial according 
to law in any southern State, and that he would, if returned upon 
this requisition, be made the victim of the lawless violence of a 
mob. 

Accepting the contention of the remonstrants, that Your Excel- 
lency has discretion to honor or deny the extradition, and that 
executive or judicial discretion cannot be revised by any other tri- 
bunal, but rests upon the responsibility of him authorized to exer- 
cise it, it is, nevertheless, true that the field within which such 
discretion may be exercised must be determined by established 
principles of law as to the competency of the evidence submitted 
for its exercise. 

Upon these considerations, I must advise Your Excellency that 
no competent evidence was offered establishing or tending to show 
any conditions affecting or overcoming the presumption of law, 
borne upon the application for extradition itself, that the alleged 
fugitive, if returned, will be dealt with according to law. The 
presumption obtains and remains until overcome by competent 



50 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

evidence, that the allegations, assurances and pledges contained in 
the application are made in good faith and for the purpose declared, 
namely, to insure a trial of the alleged fugitive in the only courts 
having jurisdiction of the alleged crime, in accordance with the 
principles of law. I am of the opinion however, that, even if 
Your Excellency is to assume that the evidence offered as such was 
competent, and did tend to show a lawless condition in North 
Carolina, and the inability of the lawful authorities to secure a fair 
trial to the alleged fugitive, still, I am compelled to declare that I 
know of no tribunal within this Commonwealth, and none that can 
be established even by Your Excellency, that has jurisdiction to try 
this question of fact, or before which the sovereign State of North 
Carolina could be required to appear as petitioner or respondent. 

But, again, even resolving all these questions in favor of the 
contention of the remonstrants, and considering the issue as one of 
expediency or discretion under the statutes of this Commonwealth, 
I am compelled to suggest, if it be within my province, that Your 
Excellency might well hesitate to refuse the rendition of this 
alleged fugitive, for the reasons urged by the remonstrants ; for 
such refusal upon such grounds would be tantamount, as it seems 
to me, to declaring that the State of Massachusetts offers itself as 
a sanctuary where persons charged with crime, fleeing from the 
southern States, may secure immunity from punishment if guilty ; 
for certain it is, they could not here be tried or punished. None 
can doubt the necessity or the justice of those laws which are 
enacted, and which officials must enforce, to protect the community 
whose interests are intrusted to them from the invasion or infec- 
tion of fugitives or immigrants justly charged with or guilty of the 
commission of crime ; nor is the consideration unworthy of notice, 
that the attitude of this Commonwealth, apparently or avowedly 
offering such sanctuary to escaped criminals, could not fail to en- 
courage, because of this hoped-for immunity, the perpetration of 
crime in a sister State. For these reasons, which I respectfully 
submit to Your Excellency, I am of the opinion that, upon any 
view of discretion or expediency, upon grounds presented by the 
remonstrants your executive duty requires the honoring of this 
requisition. 

There is, among the documents submitted for my examination, 
and at Your Excellency's suggestion by me made known to the re- 
monstrants, a letter to Your Excellency from the Governor of the 
State of North Carolina, in express and unequivocal terms declar- 
ing (indeed, promising Your Excellency), upon the faith of the 
Executive himself and of the State he represents, safety from vio- 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 51 

lence and a fair trial to the accused, if he be rendered in accord- 
ance with the demand for extradition. This communication I do 
not consider as evidence supporting or re-enforcing the pledges and 
obligations in law set forth in the demand for extradition itself ; 
but it is significant and important, as tending, rightfully and con- 
clusively, in my opinion, to allay any reasonable fear of violence 
or lawlessness that might be entertained by the alleged fugitive or 
by his friends. And in this connection I cite a case referred to by 
the learned counsel for the prisoner, and confidently relied upon by 
him as supporting his contention, that in the exercise of Your 
Excellency's discretion the extradition should be denied. 

The opinion does not present the decision of any court of last 
appeal, but is a nisi prius opinion of a justice of the court of 
common pleas in the State of Ohio, and is in the matter of one 
Hampton, an alleged fugitive from Kentucky. The learned justice, 
in discussing the issues raised upon a writ of habeas corpus^ con- 
strues the rights and duties of an executive or of a court as to 
matters of discretion concerning the rendition of the fugitive more 
liberally than elsewhere, so far as I know expressed by any judicial 
authority. But it is exceedingly significant that even in this case 
the learned justice comments upon the fact that there was before 
him evidence tending to rebut the presumption of good faith, 
raised by the demand for extradition itself. The court uses this 
language: " If these extradition proceedings had been regular as 
to form, had by duly authenticated court records charged a crime, 
and the proof established that he was a fugitive from justice, it 
would be my duty to remand the prisoner to the sheriff for delivery 
to the agent of the demanding State, save as I have said, for the 
proof before me that he cannot securely take back and keep him 
safe for trial by law. I therefore asked him to get me the assur- 
ance of the trial judge, who reasonably would know the state of 
feeling and the probabilities of safety locally, and of the Governor 
of the State as the head of the executive power thereof, and amply 
able, if forewarned, to protect the prisoner from violence." 

The earnest and convincing declarations of his Excellency the 
Governor of North Carolina, submitted in this case, would compel, 
even under the authority of the case cited by the remonstrants, 
the rendition of this alleged fugitive. If the evidence offered in 
the case before me tended to rebut or overcome this presumption 
of good faith set forth in the requisition. Your Excellency must, 
as I believe, accept, both upon the presumptions of law and under 
the fixed principle of comity between States, and upon the good 
faith that must attend the declaration of the Governor of North 



52 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Carolina, assume, and act upon the assumption, that the rendition 
of the alleged fugitive is sought only for the purpose of trying him 
in accordance with law ; and that the State of North Carolina both 
can and will secure the personal safety of the prisoner as against 
any power save that of the law he is said to have violated. 
I have the honor to be, 

Very respectfully yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Legacy Tax Act — Postponement of Tax — Non-resident Dece- 
dents — Intervening Life Estate. 

The provisions of St. 1902, c. 473, are not applicable to the estates of non- 
resident decedents. 

The statute postpones the time when the legacy tax shall become due upon 
a taxable remainder until the time when such remainder vests in the 
remainderman, without reference to the character of the life estate 
which precedes it. 

Aug. 26, 1902. 
Hon. Edward S. Bradford, 

Treasurer and Beceiver- General of the Commonwealth. 

Dear Sir: — By a communication dated August 6, you request 
my opinion upon certain questions with regard to the construction 
of St. 1902, c. 473. The act is as follows : " Section 1. In all 
cases where there has been or shall be a devise, descent or bequest 
to collateral relatives or strangers to the blood, liable to collateral 
inheritance tax, to take effect in possession or come into actual en- 
joyment after the expiration of one or more life estates or a term 
of years, the tax on such property shall not be payable nor interest 
begin to run thereon until the person or persons entitled thereto 
shall come into actual possession of such property, and the tax 
thereon shall be assessed upon the value of the property at the 
time when the right of possession accrues to the person entitled 
thereto as aforesaid, and such person or persons shall pay the tax 
upon coming into possession of such property. The executor or 
administrator of the decedent's estate may settle his account in the 
probate court without being liable for said tax : provided^ that 
such person or persons may pay the tax at any time prior to their 
coming into possession, and in such cases the tax shall be assessed 
on the value of the estate at the time of the payment of the tax, 
after deducting the value of the life estate or estates for years ; 
and provided.^ further^ that the tax on real estate shall remain a 
lien on the real estate on which the same is chargeable until it is 
paid." " Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage." 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



Oo 



You ask, first, does St. 1902, c. 473, entitled "An act relative to 
taxes upon collateral legacies and successions," apply to the estates 
of non-resident decedents ; and second, is said statute applicable 
to estates of resident decedents in cases where the intervening life 
estate is taxable? 

The first question is not free from diflSculty. The statute does 
not in terms distinguish between the estates of resident and non- 
resident decedents, and there is much force in the contention that 
no such distinction was contemplated by the Legislature in its en- 
actment. It will result, however, if the act is construed to include 
the estates of non-resident decedents, that the existing law relating 
to the taxation of collateral legacies and successions will become 
practically inoperative or at least ineffective in every case where 
personal property of a non-resident decedent, which may be within 
the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, vests in or comes into the 
actual possession of a collateral relative or stranger to the blood 
liable to the collateral inheritance tax, after the expiration of one 
or more life estates, and both the property and the legatee in whom 
it vests are beyond the limits of the Commonwealth. 

In view of what I deem to be the purpose of the statute, I can- 
not believe that the Legislature intended by implication to effect 
so radical a change in the existing law. The undoubted object of 
St. 1902, c. 473, was not to disturb the ultimate liability of tax- 
able persons and its enforcement, as at present fixed under the 
collateral inheritance tax law, but to revise or amend the law only 
so far as relates to the time when such liability shall in certain 
cases accrue. Upon this construction of the statute I am forced 
to take the view that it does not serve to postpone the time when 
the tax shall be due and payable, where there has been a devise, 
descent or bequest, consisting of property in this Commonwealth 
belonging to a non-resident, which vests or takes effect in possession 
in the future ; and that your first question must be answered in the 
negative. 

This conclusion receives confirmation from the language of the 
act itself. The statute provides that "The executor or admin- 
istrator of the decedent's estate may settle his account in the 
probate court without being liable for said tax," a provision which 
can only apply to the estates of resident decedents, since the exec- 
utor or administrator of a non-resident decedent is not required to 
file an account in the probate court of this Commonwealth, but 
may receive the property of the decedent which may be within the 
jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, upon the allowance by the court 
of the petition required by R. L., c. 148, § 3 (see R. L., c. 15, 



54 ATTORNEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

§§ 12, 13 and 14), if it appears that such executor or administra- 
tor is, in the State where he is appointed, liable for the property 
so received. This language, therefore, supports the conclusion 
that the provisions of St. 1902, c. 473, can only apply to estates 
the executors or administrators of which are compelled to file an 
account in the probate courts of this Commonwealth. 

To your second question I am of opinion that I must reply in 
the aflSrmative. Neither the purpose nor the language of the act 
can be construed to warrant a distinction between an intervening 
life estate which is taxable and one which is not taxable. The 
statute clearly postpones the time when the tax shall become due 
upon a taxable remainder to the time when such remainder vests 
in the remainderman, without reference to the character of the life 
estate which precedes it. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Metropolitan Park Commission — Business of Common Victualler — 
License from Local Authorities. 

The Metropolitan Park Commission is not authorized to conduct, through 
employees, a common victualler's business on land taken by such com- 
mission, without first obtaining a license therefor from the authorities 
of the city or town within the limits of which such land is situated, 
nor can a lessee of the Commonwealth conduct such business on land 
so taken without a license from the local authorities. 

Sept. 4, 1902. 

John Woodbury, Esq., Secretary, Metropolitan Park Commission. 

Dear Sir : — In answer to your inquiry in behalf of the Metro- 
politan Park Commission, stated as follows, I transmit my opinion 
hereinafter set forth. The inquiry is whether the commission, 
through its employees, may conduct a common victualler's business 
on land taken by this commission without first obtaining a license 
from the city or town in which the lands are situated ; and also 
whether a licensee of the Commonwealth, through this commission, 
may carry on the business of a common victualler on lands taken 
by this commission for parks or parkways, without license from 
the city or town within which the business is so carried on. 

In previous cases the Attorney-General has decided that the Com- 
monwealth, in the care of its own property, is not subject to the 
regulations of general legislation respecting similar property owned 
by individuals. Thus, the elevators of the State House are not to 
be inspected by the officials of the city. 

The just effect of this doctrine is strikingly apparent in case the 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 55 

rule is made not by the Legislature but by a subordinate body, like 
the board of health of a town. It is presumed that a town board 
of health, by its regulations concerning plumbing, may not pre- 
scribe the plumbing of a building within the town which is under 
the care and control of State officials (1 Op. Atty.-Gen., 297). 

So, where the Commonwealth has expressly delegated the per- 
formance of certain work to its own agents, they are not subject 
to the direction or control of local officials. The Governor and 
Council building the State House park are not required to obtain 
a permit from the street commissioner of Boston before digging in 
the streets. Otherwise, confusion might result in case the street 
commissioner should refuse the permit, and a public work con- 
ducted by and in the name of the Commonwealth be delayed, if 
not entirely suspended. 

So the metropolitan park police, being expressly empowered, 
have exclusive jurisdiction of offences committed in their territo- 
rial district. 

On the other hand, a dog, though he chances to be the property 
of the Commonwealth, must be licensed (1 Op. Atty.-Gen., 300). 
And agents of the Commonwealth carrying swill through the 
streets of a town must conform to the rules of the local board of 
health (1 Op. Atty.-Gen., 299). 

In every case we are to seek the intention of the Legislature. 
When it has given the care and control of property to certain 
agents, it is not reasonable to suppose that it intends them to be 
interfered with by other officials. When it expressly requires a 
certain act to be done upon the property of the Commonwealth by 
its agents, in general it does not intend that act to be subject to 
the restrictions which would attach to its doing by an individual 
as a personal matter. For example, in the present question, if 
the Legislature definitely required the Park Commission to main- 
tain a common victualler's stand on the reservation, we would be 
forced to conclude that it did not intend to make its maintenance 
depend upon the contingency of a license from local authorities. 
An agent of the Park Commission, then, carrying on such busi- 
ness, might, if prosecuted under the general law, as assuming to 
be a common victualler without a license from the city, justify 
himself under the express requirement of the special act, else the 
Commonwealth might be in the position of requiring its agents to 
first obtain a license from a board over whose authority the com- 
mission had no control. 

But here no express provision has been made for the refresh- 
ment of persons resorting to the metropolitan parks. I find no 



56 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

authority given any officials of the Commonwealth to undertake 
such a business, nor is any such obligation imposed upon them. 
The Board has power "to make available to the inhabitants of the 
district open spaces for exercise and recreation," to make rules 
and regulations for their government and use, and, in general, to 
do all acts needful for the proper execution of its duties (St. 1893, 
c. 407, § 4). 

In the absence of more specific power or duty in the premises 
delegated to or imposed upon the Park Commission, it is my 
opinion that the management of a common victualler's business 
remains as regulated and controlled by general legislation; and 
that one conducting such business without a license from the local 
authorities could not plead successfully that no such license was 
required for his justification, because he was an agent of the Park 
Commission, helping to make the park available to the public for 
recreation. 

In St. 1897, c. 207, it is provided that no liquor license shall be 
granted to be exercised in any public reservation. From this it 
would appear that the Legislature did not contemplate the sale of 
liquor by unlicensed agents of the Commonwealth ; yet, if the 
Park Commission can cause ice cream to be sold in parks by an 
unlicensed agent, it may sell intoxicating liquors as well in the 
same manner. 

My conclusions as above set forth apply with even greater force 
to your question relating to the authority or immunity of a lessee 
of the Commonwealth. I can conceive of no possible ground 
under which such lessee could conduct the business of a common 
victualler upon land of the Commonwealth without the license by 
law required to justify the maintenance of such business. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



State Highway — Abandonment — Existing Highway. 

The State Highway Commission has no authority to abandon any portion 
of an existing State highway, or to surrender such highway to a city 
or town. 

The abandonment contemplated in R. L., c. 47, § 8, may be made only in 
the case of lands or rights in lands taken by eminent domain, but upon 
which no State highway has been constructed or dedicated to public 
use. 

Sept. 6, 1902. 

A. B. Fletcher, Esq., Secretary, Massachusetts Highway Commission. 

Dear Sir : — I beg to acknowledge a request of the Massachu- 
setts Highway Commission for my opinion as to whether that com- 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT— No. 12. 57 

mission has authority under R. L., c. 47, § 8, or under any other 
legal provision, to abandon an entire highway and surrender the 
same to a town, the issue being presented by a petition addressed 
to the Highway Commission by the selectmen of Watertown, the 
petition being as follows : — 

To the Honorable the Massachusetts Highway Commission. 

The undersigned, the selectmen of the town of Watertown, respect- 
fully request your honorable Board to abandon and surrender to said 
town that part of Main Street in Watertown which has been heretofore 
laid out and constructed as a State Highway, so that after such aban- 
donment and surrender this highway shall be kept in good repair and 
condition by the town and shall be under the sole control of the town, 
and the Commonwealth shall be relieved from all expense and liability 
on account thereof. 

James H. L. Coon, 
Joseph P. Keefe, 
A. L. Richards, 

Selectm,en of Watertown. 

Section 6 of chapter 47 of the Revised Laws, making provision 
for the exercise of the authority conferred upon the Board to lay 
out and take charge of State highways, after defining the prelimi- 
naries for the exercise of this authority and referring to the adoption 
of a way as a State highway, the law requires that " thereafter it 
[such highway] shall be a state highway, and shall be constructed 
and kept in good repair and condition by the commission, at the 
expense of the commonwealth," thereby fixing the status of such 
way permanently as a State highway. 

I am of opinion, therefore, that the commission may not abandon 
a State highway or surrender it to a town as prayed for by the 
selectmen of Watertown. 

My attention is called to section 8 of chapter 47 of the Revised 
Laws: "Said commission may, with the concurrence of the 
m.ayor and aldermen of a city or the selectmen of a town, abandon 
any land or part thereof, or rights in land which have been taken 
or acquired by it in such city or town by executing, acknowledging 
and recording a deed thereof accompanied by a plan of survey 
which shall be recorded therewith. Said abandonment shall revest 
the title to the land or rights abandoned in the persons, their heirs 
and assigns, in whom it was vested at the time of the taking, and 
may be pleaded in reduction of damages 'in any suit therefor on 
account of such taking ; " but I am of opinion that this section 
does not authorize or even contemplate the abandonment of State 
highways as such, after they have been located and constructed in 
accordance with the provisions of that chapter. 



58 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Section 8 of chapter 47 does not authorize the abandonment of 
land or rights in land within the location of a highway after the 
same has been established and constructed and committed to the 
charge of the commission for the Commonwealth ; the abandon- 
ment contemplated in section 8 may only be made of lands or 
rights in lands taken, but on which no State highway has been 
located, constructed or dedicated to the public use. 
Very truly yours, 

Attorney -General. 



Extradition — State Officer — Duty to notify Fugitive of Right to 
apply for Writ of Habeas Corpus — Expenses. 

1. An officer serving a warrant for the rendition of a fugitive from justice, 

issued by the Governor of this Commonwealth, is not required by law 
to inform such fugitive as to his right to apply for a writ of habeas 
corpus. It would be well, however, for the officer in each case to 
inform the party so arrested that this right is open to him. 

2. All expenses of a State officer incidental to the transportation and 

delivery of a person held as a fugitive from justice must be borne by 
the agent of the demanding State, including reasonable and proper 
expenditures for hotel bills and railroad fares. 

Sept. 12, 1902. 

Hon. RuFUS R. Wade, Chief of the Massachusetts District Police. 

Dear Sir: — You submit to me for my opinion two questions. 
First, IS an officer serving the warrant for the rendition of a fugi- 
tive issued by the Governor of this State upon a requisition obliged 
to inform the person arrested that he has a right to apply for a writ 
of habeas corpus under E. L., c. 217, § 14? 

In answer to this inquiry, I advise you that the officer is not re- 
quired by law to inform the person under arrest of his right to 
apply for a writ of habeas corpus., though he must give the person 
arrested opportunity to make such application. I am, nevertheless, 
of the opinion that it would be well always for the officer to specif- 
ically inform the party so arrested that this right is open to him. 
Ordinarily, the dut}^ of an officer is fully discharged when he 
makes service of his precept in strict accordance with its direction 
and authorit}^ He is not required to offer advice as to the legal 
rights of tlie person upon whom he makes service ; indeed, the 
offer of such advice might often result in serious embarrassment to 
the officer, if, in the effort to construe the precept and its legal 
effect, he was in error as to a matter of fact or law. 

Your second question is phrased as follows : Is the agent who 
makes the demand obliged to pay all the expenses of the officer 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 59 

who serves the Governor's warrant, such as raih'oad fares and 
hotel bills to and from the State line? 

I call your attention to section 13 of the chapter of the Revised 
Laws above referred to : "If the governor is satisfied that the 
demand conforms to law and ought to be complied with, he shall 
issue his warrant, under the seal of .the commonwealth, to an 
officer authorized to serve warrants in criminal cases, directing him 
at the expense of the agent who makes the demand, ... to take 
and transport such person to the boundary line of this common- 
wealth and there deliver him to such agent." 

Under this express provision, it is clear that all expenses of the 
State officer incidental to the transportation and delivery of the 
person held are to be borne by the agent of the demanding State. 
Within such expenses, proper and necessary expenditures for hotel 
bills and railroad fares of the State officer are to be included. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney -General. 



Insuraiice — Annual Returns of Insurance Companies — Public 

Documents. 

Annual statements of insurance companies, filed in the office of the Insur- 
ance Commissioner, according to the provisions of R. L., c. 118, § 96, 
are papers which the Insurance Commissioner is by law required to 
receive for filing within the intention of R. L., c. 35, § 5, and are there- 
fore open to inspection as public documents. 

Sept. 22, 1902. 
Hon. Frederick L. Cutting, Insurance Commissioner. 

Dear Sir : — I am advised by you that a question has arisen in 
the insurance department upon which you desire my opinion, the 
inquiry, as stated to me, being whether the annual statements made 
by insurance companies under the provisions of R. L., c. 118, 
§ 96, are public records open to the inspection of any citizen. 

Section 96 is as follows: "Every insurance company shall 
anuually, on or before the fifteenth day of January, file in the 
office of the insurance commissioner a statement which shall ex- 
hibit its financial condition on the thirty-first day of December of 
the previous year, and its business of that year. For cause the 
commissioner may extend the time within which any such state- 
ment may be filed, but not to a date later than the fifteenth day 
of February. Such annual statement shall be in the form required 
by the insurance commissioner. He shall embody therein, so far 
as appropriate to the several companies, the substance of the ap- 



60 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

pended forms, with any additional inquiries he may require for 
the purpose of eliciting a complete and accurate exhibit of the 
conditions and transactions of the companies. The assets and lia- 
bilities shall be computed and allowed in such statement in accord- 
ance with the rules stated in section eleven. Such statement shall 
be subscribed and sworn to by the president and secretary, or, 
in their absence, by two of its principal officers. The annual 
statement of a company of a foreign country shall embcace only 
its business and condition in the United States, and shall be sub- 
scribed and sworn to by its resident manager or principal repre- 
sentative in charge of its American business. For filing each 
annual statement each foreign company shall pay to the Com- 
monwealth twenty dollars. The transaction of any new business 
by any company or its agents which has failed to file a state- 
ment in the manner herein provided shall, after notice to that effect 
from the insurance commissioner, be unlawful while such default 
continues." 

R. L., c. 35, § 5, provides: "In construing the provisions of 
this chapter and other statutes, the words ' public records ' shall, 
unless a contrary intention clearly appears, mean any written or 
printed book or paper . . . which any officer or employee of the 
commonwealth or of a county, city or town has received or is re- 
quired to receive for filing." 

This legislative definition cannot be held to include within its 
intention every paper which an officer of the Commonwealth receives 
and files. It must be limited to such as he is required by law to 
so receive for filing. Any other construction must be prejudicial 
to the rights and interests of the Commonwealth or its officers, 
and indeed, of parties or persons making communications with 
such officers. 

The original act for which the provision of the Revised Laws is 
a substitute, St. 1897, c. 439, § 1, called a public record any 
paper which a public officer is required by law to receive, or in 
pursuance of any such requirement has received for filing. The 
compilers of the Revised Laws have not preserved the distinction 
between a paper which an officer is required by law to receive and 
one which he receives for his own convenience. The existing 
qualification for the purpose of definition makes a test of the re- 
quirement to receive for filing, and any paper so received falls 
within the definition of a public record. 

The question you submit to me is necessarily narrowed, there- 
fore, to this : whether an annual statement of an insurance company 
filed in the office of the commissioner, under section 96, chapter 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCmiENT — No. 12. 61 

118 of the Revised Laws, is a paper which the Insurance Com- 
missioner is required by law to receive for filing within the in- 
tention of the statute ; and I am of the opinion that it is such, and, 
as such, open to the inspection of any citizen, under the provisions 
of section 17 of chapter 35 of the Revised Laws. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



WacJmsett Mountain State Reservation — Specific Appropriation — 
Unexpended Balance. 

The purpose of the appropriatioQ under St. 1901, c. 496, was expressly 
limited to the acquisition of land and the construction and repair of 
the roadway on the Wachusett Mountain State reservation, and an 
unexpended balance remaining therefrom may not be expended for the 
erection of a house for the use of the superintendent of such reserva- 
tion. 

Sept. 22, 1902. 

Harold Parker, Esq., Wachusett Mountain State Beservation Commission. 

Dear Sir: — Confirming my oral statement to you, I now have 
to say, in answer to your question submitted July 14, inquiring 
whether your commission may lawfully apply any balance that may 
be left after purchasing land under authority of chapter 496 of the 
Acts of 1901 to the construction of a house for the use of the 
superintendent of the reservation : — 

This commission was established by chapter 378 of the Acts of 
1899 : " Section 4. The commission shall have the same powers 
to acquire lands for the Wachusett Mountain state reservation 
which are given to the metropolitan park commission, established 
by chapter four hundred and seven of the acts of the year eighteen 
hundred and ninety-three, and acts in amendment thereof or sup- 
plementary thereto, and shall be vested with full power and 
authority to care for, protect and maintain the same in behalf 
of the Commonwealth." " Section 5. The necessary expense for 
care and maintenance of the "Wachusett Mountain state reservation, 
in excess of any income that may be derived therefrom, shall be 
annually estimated by the Wachusett Mountain state reservation 
commission, and shall be embodied by the county commissioners 
of the county of Worcester in the estimate annually submitted by 
them to the general court, and shall be assessed upon said county 
and collected in the same manner as are county taxes." 

Under this act $25,000 were appropriated to carry out its pro- 
visions. Chapter 496 of the Acts of the year 1901 made a further 



62 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

appropriation of $25,000, "to be expended by said commission 
for the purpose of acquiring, by purchase or otherwise, such land 
adjoining the present Wachusett Mountain state reservation as the 
commission may deem it necessary or advisable to acquire, and 
for the purpose of putting in safe and suitable condition the moun- 
tain roadway on the reservation.'' 

Section 2 gives to the commission the same powers over lands 
acquired under this act as are given them over lands previously 
acquired under chapter 378 of the Acts of the year 1899. Section 
3 provides that the necessary expense for the care and maintenance 
of the additional land acquired shall be paid by the county of 
Worcester in the manner provided by said statute of 1899. 

The purposes for which the $25,000 appropriated by the stat- 
utes of 1901 may be expended are expressly limited to the acquisi- 
tion of land and the construction and repair of the roadway on the 
reservation. It would seem, therefore, that the commission is not 
authorized to use any unexpended balance of such appropriation 
for the construction of a house for the use of the superintendent, 
this being an expenditure which cannot properly be included under 
either of the designated purposes for which the moneys were appro- 
priated by the State. Whether there may be any other source, 
by appropriation or otherwise, from which the funds necessary for 
the construction of a house for the superintendent may be secured, 
I express no opinion, since that inquiry is not addressed to me; 
but I am clearly of the opinion that the commission is not author- 
ized to use the unexpended balance of the sum appropriated by the 
act of 1901 for the purpose suggested, namely, the erection of a 
house for the superintendent of the reservation. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney -General. 



State Highway — Posting of Notices — Public Shade Trees. 

The Massachusetts Highway Commission has no authority, under existing 
laws, to affix to public shade trees, located within the limits of a State 
highway, notices warning the public against the injury or defacement 
of such trees. 

Oct. 7, 1902. 

A. B. Fletcher, Esq., Secretary, Massachusetts Highway Commission. 

Dear Sir : — The Massachusetts Highway Commission requests 
the opinion of the Attorney-General as to whether or not that 
commission has the right, under the statutes relating to its work. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 63 

to post notices upon trees located on State highways, warning the 
public against the injury or defacement of such trees. 

R. L., c. 208, § 104, is general in terms, and applies to shade 
trees upon public ways. I am of opinion that it includes those 
upon State highways, and that the local tree wardens necessarily 
have jurisdiction over them, excepting so far as the statutes defin- 
ing the duties of the Highway Commission are inconsistent there- 
with. The question you submit, therefore, must be determined by 
a consideration of the authority over public shade trees given to 
your commission, if at all, by those statutes which define the 
duties and powers of the Highway Commission. 

Chapter 47, section 21, of the Revised Laws, provides that 
" no shade trees shall be planted or removed or obstruction placed 
thereon, without the written permit of the highway commission, 
and then only in accordance with the regulations of said commis- 
sion." 

Section 11 of chapter 47 authorizes the commission to cause 
suitable trees to be planted, and to keep the highway reasonably 
clear of brush. 

Neither of these statutes can be construed to authorize the com- 
mission to violate the provisions of chapter 208, section 104, of 
the Revised Laws, which relates to affixing notices upon public 
shade trees ; and the affixing of such notice, even by your Board, 
does, technically, in my opinion, violate the letter if not the spirit 
of that law. 

I am therefore of the opinion that your Board has no authority 
to aflSx any notices upon shade trees. It would seem that the 
wiser course would be to secure the formal assent or approval of 
the local tree warden to the posting of such notices as you think 
the protection of the trees require, and with this approval you could 
accomplish the end sought for, and be within the technical restric- 
tions of the law. 

I am further of the opinion that the state of the law, which seems 
to prohibit your taking the initiative in the matter, is the result of 
omission rather than design ; for I cannot doubt that, had the 
Legislature dealt directly with the question, it would have con- 
ferred upon your Board this power, which is so plainly incident to 
the complete discharge of your duties with regard to the mainte- 
nance and preservation of the State highways. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney -General. 



64 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Fire Marshal's Department — Hearings — Exclusion of Public. 

The deputy in charge of the Fire Marshal's department of the District 
Police may exclude from a hearing conducted by him for the purpose 
of ascertaining the cause of a fire, all persons other than those sum- 
moned to give testimony. 

Oct. 7, 1902. 

Joseph E. Shaw, Esq., 

Fire Marshal's Department, Massachusetts District Police. 

Dear Sir : — You require the opinion of the Attorney-General 
upon the question whether the deputy in charge of the Fire Mar- 
shal's department of the District Police has the power to exclude 
from a hearing conducted by him any persons, including counsel, 
while an inquest is being held to ascertain the cause of a fire. 

R. L., c. 32, § 3, provides that, for certain purposes, "the fire 
marshal or his deputy may summon and examine on oath any per- 
son supposed to know or have means of knowing any material 
facts touching the subject of investigation. Such witnesses may 
be kept apart and examined separately and such examination shall 
be reduced to writing, and false swearing therein shall be deemed 
perjury and be punishable as such. Any justice of the municipal 
court of the city of Boston, or of the superior court, upon applica- 
tion of the fire marshal or his deputy, may compel the attendance 
of such witnesses and the giving of such testimony before the fire 
marshal or his deputy in the same manner and to the same extent 
as before said courts respectively." 

This provision was not affected by St. 1902, c. 142, which was 
an act transferring the powers and duties of the State Fire Marshal 
to the Massachusetts District Police. The original statute estab- 
lishing the office of State Fire Marshal (St. 1894, c. 444), ex- 
pressly repealed by R. L., c. 227, provided, in section 4, that " all 
investigations held by or under the direction of the state fire 
marshal may in his discretion be private, and persons other than 
those required to be present by the provisions of this act may be 
excluded from the place where such investigation is held, and wit- 
nesses may be kept separate and apart from each other and not 
allowed to communicate with each other until they have been ex- 
amined." This provision was not re-enacted in R. L., c. 32, § 3, 
above cited ; but I am of opinion that, notwithstanding its omis- 
sion, the deputy may still exclude from the room persons other 
than those summoned to give testimony during the progress of the 
inquest, and may examine persons so summoned separately, and in 
the absence of all persons except those officers who are themselves 



1903.]' PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. (If) 

conducting the inquiry under the law. The omission of the spe- 
cific provision contained in the earlier statute is not, in my opinion, 
conclusive as to the existing law. It may well be that the clause 
was omitted as being unnecessary, in that the tribunal, without 
express statutory authority, could have excluded witnesses and 
persons. 

An inquest is not such a proceeding as confers upon parties 
summoned to appear the right to be there represented by counsel. 
It is not a trial, but an inquiry. It seems to be well established 
that in coroner's inquests no person is entitled, by reason of being 
suspected of causing the death, to be present or to have counsel, 
or to cross-examine the witnesses or produce others. This pro- 
ceeding before the Fire Marshal is not essentially different from a 
coroner's inquest ; and, having in view the purpose of the inquiry 
and the general method of procedure followed in similar cases, I 
am of opinion that the fact that the provision giving the Fire 
Marshal discretion to make such hearing private was omitted from 
the Revised Laws is not sufficient ground for holding that the Fire 
Marshal, under existing laws, may not make such hearing private. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Street Raihvay — Employees — Hours of Labor — " Day's 

Work." 

A special contract made by a street railway company and its employees, 
providing for employment and compensation by the hour, and not 
aggregating the service under the designation of a "day's work," as a 
unit, is not within the provisions of R. L., c. 106, § 22, setting forth 
what shall constitute a day's work for all conductors, drivers and 
motormen employed by street railway companies. 

Oct. 8, 1902. 
Hon. RuFUS R. Wade, Chief of the Massachusetts District Police. 

Dear Sir: — You submit to me three inquiries: "Firsts A 
street railway company operating cars in this Commonwealth em- 
ploy and pay their motormen and conductors by the hour. Does 
such payment by the hour invalidate that part of section 22, chap- 
ter 106, Revised Laws, which refers to ' a day's labor'?" The 
real inquiry is, whether a special contract, made by such company 
and such employee, providing for employment and compensation 
by the hour, and not aggregating the service under the designation 



6Q ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

of a "day's work," as a unit, falls within the prohibition of the 
section referred to, and is forbidden because in violation of statu- 
tory law. 

The question raised is an interesting one, and not entirely free 
from difficulty. But I am clearly of the opinion that an intention, 
if the Legislature entertained such, to restrict or impair the right 
of a citizen to make his own contract, is not to be presumed in the 
absence of express and apt words compelling that construction. 
I am of opinion that the term "day's work" is used, and so 
intended, as a unit representing both the term of labor and the 
right of compensation for such term. This definition does not 
prohibit or preclude the making of a special contract which does 
not adopt such unit as an element of the contract itself, but relates 
merely to specific employment for specific defined periods of time 
not referable to the standard of a day's work. 

It may be that the Legislature had in mind, by reason of its 
designation of conductors', drivers and motormen, not merely the 
rights or the protection of the laborer or employee, but the interests 
and safety of the public ; and that the enactment is based upon 
the judgment of the Legislature, speaking for the public, that em- 
ployment in the exacting service of operating electric cars for more 
than the number of hours limited within the twenty-four would be 
dangerous to the travelling public, because labor protracted beyond 
such limited hours would tend to impair, through fatigue, the effi- 
ciency of the men to whose care the safety of the travelling public 
was committed. But this possible occasion for, or intent of, the 
legislation, does not warrant a construction that would require a 
new significance to be given to the words " day's work " as a term 
in a contract. See 1 Op. Atty.-Gen., 10. 

Your second inquiry is based upon a statement of facts as fol- 
lows : " Conductors and motormen are employed in the case cited 
from 5.30 a.m. to 12 midnight, with a lay-off from 10.45 a.m. to 
6.15 P.M., not doing their day's work in twelve consecutive hours." 
Assuming that such schedule is based upon the special contract 
above referred to, for the reasons heretofore given I am required to 
hold that this arrangement is not in violation of the section which 
I have above cited. 

Your third inquiry states that: "A conductor and motorman 
may work from 5.30 a.m. to 11.50 a.m. and from 5.10 p.m. to 
10.30 P.M., making eleven hours and forty minutes of actual plat- 
form work, and also exceeding the twelve consecutive hours." 
Here, again, assuming the existence of the special contract, I have 
to sa}^, for the reasons above set forth, that I am of the opinion 



lyoa.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — x\o. U. 07 

that this arrangement is permissible, because not in conflict with 
the provisions of the same section. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney-General. 



Pauper Laiv — Military Settlement — Desertion, 

A person is not debarred from gaining a settlement under the provisions 
of R. L., c. 80, § 1, cl. 10, by reason of the fact that he absented 
himself from his command, and was thereafter found serving with 
other troops and was returned to his original regiment, where he re- 
mained until honorably discharged from the service of the United 
States, there being no' evidence that such person was ever proved 
guilty of desertion. 

Oct. 24, 1902. 

J. F. Lewis, M.D., Superintendent, State Adult Poor . 

Dear Sir: — In a communication dated September 22, you 
desired my opinion upon a question with regard to the settlement 
of a pauper under the provisions of R. L., c. 80, § 1, cl. 10. 

It appears that the pauper in question " enlisted in Company H, 
Twenty-ninth Massachusetts Infantry, Aug. 22, 1862, and de- 
serted therefrom on or about the fifteenth day of May, 1864. Under 
the name of Arthur Bryant he re-enlisted, Aug. 6, 1864, in Com- 
pany C, Second Infantry, and received a bounty of $325. On 
June 28, 1865, he was reclaimed as a deserter and returned to the 
Twenty-ninth Infantry. He was honorably discharged from the 
service of the United States on the twenty-ninth day of July, 
1865." 

It is admitted that the pauper would have gained a settlement 
under the provisions of this clause unless prevented therefrom by 
the fact that in May, 1864, he absented himself from his command, 
and was thereafter found serving with other troops, and was 
returned to his original regiment, where he remained until he 
received an honorable discharge. 

I am of opinion that he was not so prevented. The statute in 
terms provides that, if other conditions are fulfilled, a pauper shall 
lose the benefit of this clause only when he has been proved guilty 
of desertion ; and it is not enough that a person claiming settle- 
ment by virtue of such provisions was absent from duty or was 
even arrested for desertion, if there is no evidence that such per- 
son was convicted or sentenced therefor. Fitcliburg v. Lunenburg^ 
102 Mass. 358, 361. I am aware of no technical signification 
which would render the words ' ' reclaimed as a deserter " equiva- 
lent to a statement that the person to whom they relate was proved 



68 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

guilty of desertion ; and, assuming that they are used in their 
ordinary sense, I am of opinion that there is no evidence disclosed 
by the record, as quoted in your letter, that the pauper in question 
was ever proved guilty of desertion within the meaning of the 
statute, and that such person is therefore entitled to claim a settle- 
ment under the provisions of R. L., c 80, § 1, cl. 10. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



Civil Service — Re-employment of Employee discharged by Reason 
of Revision of Charter of City of Boston — Specific Exemp- 
tion. 

St. 1895, c. 449, entitled "An act to revise the charter of the city of 
Boston," which provides in section 27 that oflflcers and employees of 
any department of the city whose positions were abolished or whose 
tenure of office was affected by the act might be appointed to positions 
in any department of the city without civil service examination or 
enrolment, serves to exempt from the operation of the civil service 
law and rules an employee discharged by reason of such revision, 
although the re-employment of such employee is deferred until seven 
years after his discharge. 

Nov. 3, 1902. 

Hon. Charles Theodore Russell, Chairman, Civil Service Commission, 

Dear Sir : — I beg to reply to your communication of October 
8, requesting my opinion upon the construction to be given to St. 
1895, c. 449, § 27. This statute is entitled "An act to revise the 
charter of the city of Boston," creating certain departments of the 
city of Boston, and abolishing or consolidating some of those 
already existing. Section 27 is as follows: "The officers and 
employees of any department who may be removed from the ser- 
vice of the city, or whose tenure of office may be affected by the 
provisions of this act or the carrying out thereof, may be appointed 
to positions in any department of said city without civil service 
examination or enrolment." 

It appears that, at the time when the statute took effect, one 
Townsend was, and had been since 1890, employed in the labor 
division of the water department of Boston, in a branch of the 
service which was abolished under the provisions of this act. On 
Aug. 5, 1902, more than seven years after the discharge of Mr. 
Townsend, consequent upon the abolition of the department in 
which he was employed, the present water commissioner of the 
city of Boston notified the Civil Service Commissioners ^that he 
had appointed Townsend an inspector in the water department, 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 69 

a position in the first division of the classified service, without any 
requisition, examination or certification by the Civil Service Com- 
missioners, claiming to act therein under authority of section 27, 
above quoted. 

Your letter further states that : " The specific question upon these 
reported facts is, whether William H. Townsend was legally ap- 
pointed inspector in the water department in August, 1902, solely 
under and by virtue of section 27 of chapter 449 of the Acts of 
1895, without requisition or certification." 

Although the question is not free from doubt, I am of opinion 
that the appointment of Townsend was legal under the provisions 
of St. 1895, c. 449, § 27. 

The obvious purpose of section 27 was to provide for the 
appointment in other departments of officers and employees of the 
city of Boston who were thrown out of office or employment by 
the abolition or consolidation of the departments with which they 
were connected by the legislation of 1895, without subjecting them 
to the inconvenience and delay of taking a civil service examina- 
tion, and awaiting their turn for appointment upon the classified 
lists of the service. The section does not in terms limit the time 
within which such appointments may be made, and I can see no 
valid ground for reading such a limitation into the act by implica- 
tion. If the statute were construed to require, by implication, 
the immediate appointment to positions in the service of the city of 
Boston of persons displaced therefrom by St. 1895, chapter 449, 
even allowing a reasonable time for arranging for transfers or re- 
employment, it would follow that a separate adjudication would be 
necessary in the case of each appointment to determine what should 
constitute a reasonable time, under all the circumstances, with the 
possible result that an adverse conclusion would deprive the person 
for whose advantage section 27 was enacted of the very benefit 
which it was intended to confer. 

I cannot believe that such was the intent of the Legislature, and 
I am therefore constrained to advise you that, in my opinion, the 
appointment of Mr. Townsend as inspector in the water depart- 
ment of the city of Boston was authorized under the provisions of 
St. 1895, c. 449, § 27, although made without requisition upon or 
certification by your commission. Upon this view of the question 
it seems unnecessary to reply to the general inquiries submitted. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



70 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Firemen's Relief Fund — Aid to Widoios of Deceased Firemen. 

The Board of Commissioners of the Firemen's Relief Fund is authorized 
under existing statutes to discontinue the allowance of $400 estab- 
lished by such Board to widows of deceased firemen, under the pro- 
visions of St. 1892, c. 177, in view of the payment of $1,000 designated 
and established for such purpose by R. L., c. 32, § 77. 

Nov. 7, 1902. 
James C. Crombie, Esq., 

Chairman, Board of Commissioners of the Firemen's Belief Fund. 

Dear Sir : — You desire the opinion of this department upon 
the question "whether it is obligatory to pay to the widows of 
deceased firemen killed in the service anything in addition to the 
amount now granted to minor children." You state that, in ac- 
cordance with the provisions of section 77 of chapter 32 of the 
Eevised Laws, an allowance of $2 per week is given to such chil- 
dren under sixteen years of age ; and that, prior to the enactment 
of the statute authorizing the State Treasurer to pay $1,000 to 
widows or dependents, under section 32 of above cited chapter of 
the Revised Laws, your Board has allowed $400 for death claims, 
$100 of which was for funeral expenses; and you further state 
that, since the later enactment, your Board has discontinued the 
death allowance of $400. 

R. L., c. 32, §§ 71-77, inclusive, contain provisions relating to 
the firemen's relief fund, section 71 providing that the sum of 
$10,000 shall be paid by the Treasurer of the Commonwealth to 
the treasurer of the association, from money received from taxes 
on fire insurance companies doing business in this Commonwealth, 
and that such sum shall be known as the firemen's relief fund of 
Massachusetts. 

Sections 73, 74, and 77 of said chapter provide as follows: 
" Section 73. Such fund shall be used for the relief of firemen, 
whether members of said association or not, who may be injured 
in the performance of their duty at a fire or in going to or in return- 
ing from the same, and for the rehef of the widows and children of 
firemen killed in the performance of such duty, in the manner and 
to the amount determined by a board of five persons, three of 
whom, not members of said association, shall be appointed by the 
governor, and two of whom shall be appointed by said associa- 
tion." " Section 74. Officers and members in active service 
in all incorporated protective departments co-operating with fire 
departments, and any person performing the duties of a fireman in 
a town having no organized fire department, shall be entitled to 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 71 

the benefits thereof." "Section 77. If a fireman in a regularly 
organized fire department of a city or town, or any officer or mem- 
ber in active service of any incorporated protective department act- 
ing in concert with fire departments, or a person doing fire duty at 
the request or by the order of the authorities of a town which has 
no organized fire department, or a person performing the duties of 
a fireman in such town, is killed, or dies within sixty days from 
injuries received while in the performance of his duties, and his 
death is certified by the city or town clerk and the attending 
physician or medical examiner to the treasurer and receiver- 
general, he shall pay to the executor or administrator of such fire- 
man, out of the money received from taxes on fire insurance 
companies doing business in this Commonwealth, the sum of one 
thousand dollars for the use equally of his widow and minor children ; 
or if there are minor children but no widow, to their use ; or if there 
is no minor child, to the use of the widow ; and if there is no widow 
or minor child, to the use of the next of kin if dependent on such 
deceased fireman for support. A child of full age dependent upon 
such fireman for support shall be regarded as a minor child." 

The original statute establishing this fund (Acts of 1892, 
c. 177) does not materially differ from sections 71 to 76 of the 
Revised Laws, chapter 32 ; and the provisions of section 77 orig- 
inally enacted in St. 1893, c. 401, were almost identical with those 
of said section 77. 

It appears, therefore, that the Legislature has contemplated two 
distinct sources of relief for firemen injured, or to the families of 
those killed, in the service: (1) from the firemen's relief fund, a 
sum not exceeding in the aggregate $10,000, annually set apart; 
(2) in cases where firemen are killed or fatally injured, from money 
in the custody of the treasurer of the Commonwealth ; the source 
of income in both cases being taxation levied upon fire insurance 
companies doing business in this Commonwealth. 

I am of opinion that section 77 does not conclusively limit or 
restrict the action of the Board provided for in section 73, in 
relation to relief for firemen who may be injured in the perform- 
ance of their duties at a fire, or in going to or returning from the 
same, and for the relief of widows and children of firemen killed 
in the performance of such duties, in the manner and to the amount 
to be determined by such Board. It might be held that section 
77 acted as a repeal of so much of the preceding sections as related 
to firemen killed or fatally injured in the performance of their 
duties ; but I do not think this conclusion necessary or inevitable, 
in view of the fact that the preceding sections were amended by 



72 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

St. 1902, c. 108, which in effect increased the annual appropriation 
for the firemen's relief fund from $10,000 to $12,000, and showing 
the apparent intent of the Legislature to continue the relief from 
the fund, as distributed by the Board. 

I therefore conclude that the Board of Commissioners of the 
Firemen's Relief Fund have the same powers and duties which they 
had previous to the enactment of section 77 in its original form ; 
and that they may, though they are not required to, vote relief to 
widows and children of firemen if they deem it proper, notwith- 
standing the provisions in section 77 for the payment of the spe- 
cific sum of $1,000 in cases of death or fatal injury. 

Your question is, whether it is obligatory to pay to the widows 
of deceased firemen killed in the service anything in addition to 
the amount granted to the minor children ; that is to say, whether 
you are required to pay, in addition to the sum of $1,000, the 
allowance of $400 made before the enactment of the law pro- 
viding for the payment of $1,000. It does not appear that for- 
merly it was obligatory upon the Board to grant any specific 
amount to the widows or children of firemen killed in the service, 
under section 73, the amount so to be paid being left to the dis- 
cretion of the Board. 

I am of opinion that the question of amount of payment, and 
whether there shall be any payment in addition to the sum of 
$1,000, is still discretionary with the Board. In other words, I 
am of opinion that the specific payment of $1,000 upon a death 
claim is not an exclusive substitute for the former allowance of 
$400 ; but I am led to conclude that your Board may well consider 
this specific payment of $1,000 to be an adequate and reasonable 
provision, in substitution of the former allowance, and the Legis- 
lature may have so intended. At all events, it seems perfectly 
clear to me that, in the exercise of a wise discretion, and having 
regard to accomplishing the greatest good from the funds under 
your control, you may well discontinue the former allowance of 
$400, especially as I assume that there are more cases calling for 
relief where there is a disability, than cases arising where a fireman 
had suffered death in the performance of his duty. 

I therefore advise you that your Board is authorized, under the 
present statutory provisions, to discontinue the former allowance 
of $400, considering the payment of $1,000, specifically provided 
for, as in lieu of and in substitution for the purpose then not defi- 
nitely specified in legislation, but now, by the provisions of section 
77, designated and established. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney -General. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 73 



Massachusetts Highway Commission — State Highvjay — Liability 
of Commission for Removal of Poles ivhich are a Menace to 
Public. 

The Massachusetts Highway Commission, in removing poles which were 
erected by a telephone company along a State highway, and have 
become a menace to the public by reason of neglect or decay, after 
proper notice of that fact, and notice that adequate measures must be 
taken to insure safety of existing poles or to substitute new ones, has 
been given to the company, and a reasonable time allowed for proper 
action by it, would incur no liability to the company. 

Nov. 7, 1902. 
A. B. Fletcher, Esq., Secretary, Massachusetts Highwatj Commission. 

Dear Sir : — The Massachusetts Highway Commission desires 
the opinion of the Attorney-General upon the following question : 
"Along the State highway in the town of Grafton, poles which 
have in the past been used by the Massachusetts Telephone Com- 
pany are located. These poles are not now in use ; many of them 
are in bad condition, and the division engineer reports that in his 
opinion they are a menace to the public travel. The commission 
has endeavored to have the company (which we understand is now 
out of existence) remove these poles, and now feel disposed to 
take the matter in hand and have the poles cut down without fur- 
ther communication with the owners of the poles. Before doing 
this, however, the commission desires advice . . . on the matter." 

Public- service corporations, which maintain by license pipes, 
wires or other structures in or under a highway, are not in general 
regarded as having acquired a property right, such as would entitle 
them to recover damages, where the recovery was limited to per- 
sons whose abutting property is injured by improvement of the 
highway. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corporation v. Brookline, 121 
Mass. 5. It seems to be the rule that such corporations hold their 
rights and privileges in the street subject to the liability of making 
changes in the structures which they have erected in the way, when- 
ever public necessity or convenience require changes of location 
or grade in the highway. See Matter of Deering, 93 N. Y. 361 ; 
Natick Gas Light Company v. Natick^ 175 Mass. 246, 252. 

Since the right to maintain telegraph or telephone poles in a 
highway is subject to the liability of removing or altering the loca- 
tion of such structures whenever public necessity or convenience 
may require it, it would seem that the companies maintaining such 
structures would be also subject to the liability to have them 
removed in cases where they became a public nuisance, because 
they were a menace to the proper use and enjoyment of the way. 



74 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Ordinarily, the company would be under a duty to keep such 
structures in safe and proper condition, and the liability for dam- 
ages occasioned by their neglect to do so would be sufficient safe- 
guard ; but where the company is out of existence, and has 
abandoned the poles, I am of opinion that the authorities who 
control the way may properly remove any structures which are 
dangerous to the safety of the public in using the way, without 
thereby incurring any liability to the company. In this instance 
the State Highway Commission is charged with the care and main- 
tenance of the State highway, where the poles in question are sit- 
uated (R. L., c. 47, § 6), and the ultimate liability for injuries 
to persons using the way rests upon the Commonwealth (R. L., 
c. 47, § 13). 

It seems to me, therefore, that, if the poles erected along the 
way have become a menace to the public by reason of decay or 
neglect, and proper notice of that fact, together with notice that, 
unless it shall forthwith take adequate measures to ensure safety 
of existing poles or to substitute new ones, such poles will be 
removed by the commission, has been given to the company, and 
a reasonable time allowed for proper action, the State Highway 
Commission would incur no liability to the company by removing 
them if it neglects to make such removal. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



State Board of Publication — Documents — Approval of Official 

Publication. 

The word " documents," as used in St. 1902, c. 438, § 2, extends to and 
includes a compilation by a State officer of laws relating to the depart- 
ment under his charge, and also a publication by a State Board, 
containing certain information useful in the schools of the Common- 
wealth, and such publications must be approved by the State Board of 
Publication. 

Nov. 11, 1902. 

William N. Davenport, Esq., Secretanj, State Board of Publication. 

Dear Sir : — Your letter of October 27 requires my opinion as 
to the scope of the authority of the State Board of Publication, 
under the provisions of St. 1902, c. 438. You state that the 
question arises upon an application of a State officer for authority 
to print a compilation of the laws relating to the department under 
his charge, and upon a request of a State Board for authority to 
publish certain information useful in the schools of the Common- 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 75 

wealth ; and the specific question submitted by you is, whether or 
not publications of the kind indicated are included within the 
words "other documents," as used in section 2. 

St. 1902, c. 438, § 1, establishes a state Board of Publication. 
Section 2 (the section in question) provides that it shall be the 
duty of such Board " to examine the annual reports and all special 
reports and other documents issued by or on behalf of the Com- 
monwealth by any public officer, board or commission, and to 
define the form and extent thereof," with certain exceptions there- 
after made. Section 3 provides that public officers. Boards or 
commissions may, in addition to their annual report, make such 
special reports as shall be deemed by the State Board of Publica- 
tion to be of practical utility. Section 4 provides that all boards 
or commissions, before entering upon the preparation of any pub- 
lication, shall submit to the State Board of Publication careful 
statements of the scope and estimates of the size of the intended 
publication, and such Board is given power to determine the num- 
ber of pages, to decide upon the desirability of illustration and 
other details. By section 6 an appeal is permitted from the deci- 
sions of the Board to the Governor and Council. 

The word " document," as used in this statute, has no technical 
signification. It is employed in its ordinary meaning, and denotes 
a written or printed paper, containing an authoritative record or 
statement, or, more generally, a publication which is designed to 
serve as a source of evidence or information upon a particular sub- 
ject or class of subjects. 

Taken in this sense, I have no hesitation in advising you that 
the word "document," in St. 1902, c. 438, § 2, extends to and 
includes publications of the character referred to in your commu- 
nication, and that such publications are subject to the examination 
and approval of your Board. 

Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney-General. 



76 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board — Construction of Build- 
ings — Permit from Local Authorities. 

The Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board is not required to obtain a 
permit from the building department of the city of Boston before pro- 
ceeding with the erection of a pumping station, and such department 
cannot require that block stone shall be used in the foundation of such 
structure. 

Nov. 17, 1902. 
Hon. Henry H. Sprague, 

Chairman, Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 

Dear Sir: — Your letter of November 14 required my opinion 
upon the following questions : First, do the building laws of the 
city of Boston apply to the constructional work of the Metropolitan 
Water and Sewerage Board, so to require that block stones should 
be used in the foundations? Second, is the Board required, before 
proceeding with the construction of a pumping station, to obtain a 
permit from the city department of the city of Boston. 

You state that the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board is 
now constructing a pumping station for the high-level sewer, under 
the provisions of St. 1899, c. 424. That statute, in section 1, 
authorizes the Board, for the purpose of constructing, maintaining 
and operating a system of sewage disposal for the south metropoli- 
tan system, "to construct, maintain and operate such mains, 
sewers and other works as may be necessary in substantial accord- 
ance with the plans outlined in the special report of said board to 
the general court of 1899." The work so authorized is a public 
work, and the Board acts as the agent of the Commonwealth in 
exercising the authority of the sovereign over its own property, 
and its acts are the acts of the Commonwealth. In the exercise of 
the authority thus conferred upon it, the Board is not to be deemed 
subject to the restrictions imposed by St. 1892, c 419, and acts 
in amendment thereof, regulating the erection of buildings in the 
city of Boston, unless such restrictions are made applicable to its 
proceedings by clear intendment of such statutes. See 1 Op. 
Atty.-Gen., 290; Attorney-General's Report for 1899, 49. 

It cannot be supposed that the Legislature, in establishing these 
regulations, the purpose of which was to secure the safety of citi- 
zens who may occupy the buildings, intended to limit or restrict 
the authority of the Commonwealth over its own property. It is 
to be presumed that the Commonwealth will take all necessary 
precautions to insure the safety of buildings erected upon its own 
property and for its own use, and that the supervision of a local 
officer over the work of construction is unnecessary. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



t i 



I am therefore of the opinioD that your Board is not required 
before proceeding with the construction of the building in question, 
to obtain a permit from the building department of the city of 
Boston, and that such department cannot require that block stone 
should be used in the foundation of such building. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney -General. 



Foreign Corporation — Right to file Papers ivith Commissioner of 

Corporations. 

The Commissioner of Corporations may not receive for filing the papers of 
a foreign corporation engaged in the business of loaning money to its 
members, under a contract with each member that, upon the payment 
of a weekly premium, the company will loan to such member, upon the 
maturity of his contract, a sum of money for the purchase of a home, 
such maturity being regulated by the numerical order of acceptance of 
the several contracts, for the reason that the transaction of such busi- 
ness by domestic corporations is* forbidden by the provisions of R. L., 
c. 73, §§ 7, 8. 

Dec. 29, 1902. 

Hon. William D. T. Trefry, Commissioner of Corporations. 

Dear Sir: — In your letter of December 12 you ask whether 
the Co-operative Home Purchasing Association, a corporation of 
Rochester, N. Y., is entitled to be admitted to do business in 
Massachusetts. 

The association enters into contracts with its members, the 
essential terms of which are as follows : The member agrees to 
pay to the association 50 cents per week until his contract 
"matures." Falling behind in his payments, he forfeits, if 
within one year, all he has paid ; if after one year twenty per cent, 
thereof. Upon "maturity" the association agrees to loan him 
$1,000 for the purchase of a house, taking the title to itself and 
allowing him to occupy it as a tenant upon payment of %1 a month, 
until such time as he has paid for the property, and an additional 
sum for the expenses of the association ; then the title is to be 
transferred to him. 

The feature wherein the transaction differs materially from an 
ordinary loan upon mortgage security is the postponement of the 
loan in each case until the maturity of the contract. The first 
contract is matured when there is in the treasury of the association 
$1,000, accumulated from payments and forfeitures; the second 
contract matures when $1,000 more is accumulated; and soon, 



78 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 1903. 

the association applying its funds to the contracts in the numerical 
order of their acceptance. 

Plainly, the maturity of all except the early contracts will be 
far in the future, if it ever occurs. In case the contract does not 
mature in three years, the holder, if not in arrears, may treat his 
payments as a loan to the association, which agrees to re-pay it, 
with 6 per cent, interest, when there is money enough in the 
treasury. This event also depends upon the contract being 
reached in its numerical order. 

Without considering the illegalit}^ of such a contract at common 
law, I am of opinion that it is prohibited by R. L., c 73, §§7 
and 8 : " Section 7. No person or corporation shall issue, nego- 
tiate or sell any bonds, certificates or obligations of any kind, 
which are by the terms thereof to be redeemed in numerical order 
or in any arbitrary order of precedence without reference to the 
amount previously paid thereon by the holder thereof, whether 
they are sold on the instalment plan or otherwise." " Section 8. 
A person or corporation violating the provisions of the preceding- 
section shall forfeit fifty dollars for each offence. Such violation 
by a domestic corporation shall operate as a forfeiture of its fran- 
chise ; and such violation by a foreign corporation, association or 
organization shall operate as a discontinuance of its right to do 
business in this commonwealth, and the supreme judicial court 
or the superior court, upon the application of the commissioner 
of corporations, shall have jurisdiction in equity to enjoin such 
foreign corporation, association or organization from further con- 
tinuing its business in this commonwealth." If the obligation fails 
to mature in three years, it is to be redeemed in its numerical 
order by repayment of the sums paid in, with 6 per cent, interest. 

It is therefore your duty to refuse to allow the co-operative 
Home Purchasing Association to file in your department the papers 
required by R. L., c. 126, §§ 4 to 7 inclusive. 
Very truly yours, 

Herbert Parker, Attorney- General. 



LIST OF CASES 



IN WHICH THE 



Attorney- General 



HAS APPEARED 



During the Year 1902. 



INFORMATIONS. 



1. At the Relation of the Treasurer and Receiver-General. 

(a) For the non-payment of corporation taxes for the year 
1901, informations were brought against the — 

American Bell Telephone Company. Information dismissed. 

Abram French Company. Enjoined. 

Atlantic Lumber Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Bay State Metal Works. Enjoined. 

Boston Cycle and Sundry Company. Tax paid and information 
dismissed. 

Boston Ice Cream Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Boston Motor Carriage Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

Carlow & Putnam Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

Coates Clipper Manufacturing Company. Tax paid and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

Consolidated Law Cabinet. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Cox & Co., Incorporated. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Cunningham Lumber Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

Daily News Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Dunne Lyceum Bureau. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Durgin Grocery and Provision Company. Tax paid and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

Eastern Printing and Engraving Company. Tax paid and in- 
formation dismissed. 

Essex Cycle Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

F. A. Clapp Horn Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

Fifield Tool Company. Tax abated and information dismissed. 

Fosslitch Leather Company. Enjoined. 

Frank H. Hall Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Frederick Kendall Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

Garratt Ford Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 



82 ATTORXEY-GENERAi.'S REPORT. [Jan. 

George H. Wood Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

H. M. Kinports Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Holly Whip Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Holyoke Steam and Gas Pipe Company. Tax paid and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

International Jupiter Steel Company. Tax paid and information 
dismissed. 

J. A. Glass Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

J. P. & W. H. Emond, Incorporated. Tax paid and information 
dismissed. 

James H. Lamb Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

John C. DeLaney Moulding Company. Tax paid and information 
dismissed. 

John Dyke Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

John A. Armitage Pulley Covering Company. Enjoined. 

Kelley Shoe Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Kimball Brothers Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Lamprey Boiler Furnace Mouth Protector Company. Tax paid 
and information dismissed. 

Lynn Ice Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Marlier & Co., Limited. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Marshall Engine Company. Tax abated and information dis- 
missed. 

Massachusetts Investment Company. Tax paid and information 
dismissed. 

Meadow Brook Farm Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

Mechanics Loan Company. Enjoined. 

Medfield & Medway Street Railway Company. Tax paid and 
information dismissed. 

Newburyport Herald Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

Norfolk Western Street Railway Company. Tax paid and in- 
formation dismissed. 

Norris Livery Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Nute-Hallett Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Olympic Amusement Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

Peoples Furniture Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

Peoples Ice Company of Worcester. Tax paid and information 
dismissed. 

Plymouth Stove Foundry Company. Tax paid and information 
dismissed. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 83 

Reycroft Pharmacy Company. Enjoined. 

Shedd & Crane Leather Company. Tax paid and information 
dismissed. 

Springfield Construction Company. Tax paid and information 
dismissed. 

Spy Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

T. F. Little Oil Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Telegram Publishing Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

Thomas J. Gavin Company. Tax paid and information dis- 
missed. 

W. E. Rice Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

Westfield Manufacturing Company. In bankruptcy. Pending. 

Weymouth Seam-face Granite Company. Tax paid and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

Whiting Manufacturing Company. Tax paid and information 
dismissed. 

William Bourne & Son Piano Company. Tax paid and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

Ziegler Electric Company. Tax paid and information dismissed. 

(6) For failure to file the tax return for the year 1902, required 
by section 37 of chapter 14 of the Revised Laws, informations 
were brought against the — 

Bay State Bottling Company. Return filed and information dis- 
missed. 

Bay State Chair Company, Incorporated. Return filed and infor- 
mation dismissed. 

Bay State Construction Company. Return filed and information 
dismissed. 

Bay State Shoe and Leather Company. Return filed and infor- 
mation dismissed. 

Bingham & Whiting Company. Return filed and information dis- 
missed. 

Boston Pneumatic Transit Company. Return filed and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

Bradley Hagney Company. In hands of receiver. 

Brightwood Brick Company. Return filed and information dis- 
missed. 

Buttrick & Eddy Company. Return filed and information dis- 
missed. 

Coates Clipper Manufacturing Company. Return filed and infor- 
mation dismissed. 

Co-operative Printing Society. Enjoined. 



84 ATTOKNEY-GENEEAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Damon Safe and Iron Works Company. Return filed and infor- 
mation dismissed. 

Daily News Company. Return filed and information dismissed. 

Excess Indicator Company. Return filed and information dis- 
missed. 

Essex Automobile and Bicycle Company. Unable to get service. 

Hopewell Railroad Supply Company. Return filed and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

Kelly Shoe Company. In bankruptcy. 

Littlefield Leather Company. Return filed and information dis- 
missed. 

Lowell Germain Chemical Company. Return filed and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

Manufacturers Investment Company. Return filed and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

McCarthy, Sheehy & Kendrick Company. Return filed and infor- 
mation dismissed. 

Miscoe Spring Water Company. Return filed and information 
dismissed. 

Morrill Brothers Company. Return filed and information dis- 
missed. 

Norfolk & Bristol Street Railway Company. Return filed and 
information dismissed. 

Norfolk Electric Light and Power Company. Enjoined. 

Pean Medical Company. Return filed and information dismissed. 

Perfection Button Company. Return filed and information dis- 
missed. 

Phillipston Street Railway Company. Return filed and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

Quinsigamond Co-operative Baking Company. Return filed and 
information dismissed. 

S. Worthington Paper Company. Return filed and information 
dismissed. 

Springfield Construction Company. Return filed and information 
dismissed. 

Teeling Baking Company. Return filed and information dis- 
missed. 

W. C. Young Manufacturing Company. Return filed and infor- 
mation dismissed. 

Whitney Jewelry Company. Enjoined. 

Worcester Construction Company. Return filed and information 
dismissed. 

Worcester Fire Appliance Company. Return filed and informa- 
tion dismissed. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 85 

2. At the Relation of the Commissioner of Corporations. 

For failure to file the certificate of condition for the year 1902 
required by section 51 of chapter 110 of the Revised Laws — 

American Camera Manufacturing Company. Certificate filed, and 
information dismissed. 

Arlington Co-operative Association. Certificate filed and infor- 
mation dismissed. 

B. L. Bragg Company. Certificate filed and information dismissed. 
Bush Market Company. Pending. 

C. A. Edgarton Manufacturing Company. Certificate filed and 

information dismissed. 

Central Block. Certificate filed and information dismissed. 

Cunningham Engineering Company. Enjoined. 

Fore River Company. Certificate filed and information dismissed. 

George F. Quigley Company. Information dismissed. 

Oilman Snow Guard Company. Certificate filed and information 
dismissed. 

Hatch Automatic Damper Company. Certificate filed and infor- 
mation dismissed. 

Holyoke Steam and Gas Pipe Company. Certificate filed and in- 
formation dismissed. 

John H. Armitage Pulley Covering Company. Enjoined on tax 
suit. 

Kelly Shoe Company. Certificate filed and information dismissed. 

Kimball Brothers Company. Certificate filed and information dis- 
missed. 

Lamprey Boiler Furnace Mouth Protector Company. Certificate 
filed and information dismissed. 

Mather Launch and Canoe Company. Information dismissed. 

Merrimac Woolen Mills Company. Certificate filed and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

New England Laundry Company. Enjoined. 

New England Rubber Company. Certificate filed and information 
dismissed. 

Springfield Construction Company. Certificate filed and informa- 
tion dismissed. 

Suspension Transportation Company. Certificate filed and infor- 
mation dismissed. 

Tribune Building Company. Certificate filed and information dis- 
missed. 

Union Express Company. Certificate filed and information dis- 
missed. 



86 ATTORNEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Watertown Machine Company. Certificate filed and information 

dismissed. 
Worcester Textile Company. Pending. 

3. At the Relation of the Civil Service Commissioners. 
Saunders, Robert V., Attorney-General v. Petition for quo war- 
ranto to try the title of the respondent to the office of super- 
intendent of the city farm of Lowell. Pending. 

4. At the Relation of Private Persons. 

Attorney-General ex rel. v. Vineyard Grove Company. Petition 
for use of name in an information for an injunction restrain- 
ing the said company from an alleged interference with the 
rights of the public in a sea beach, and ordering the removal 
of structures causing such alleged interference. Henry S. 
Dewey appointed master. Pending. 

Attorney-General v. Onset Bay Grove Association. Information 
in the nature of quo warranto to abate a public nuisance. 
Referred to Warren A. Reed, auditor. Pending. 

Attorney-General ex rel. Samuel E. Hull et als.^ Selectmen of 
Millbury, v. Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Company. 
Information in the nature of quo warranto to abate a nuisance. 
Pending. 

Attorney-General ex rel, v. Fiskdale Mills. Petition for an injunc- 
tion to restrain the respondent from interfering with the 
waters of Alum Pond, a great pond. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 87 



GEADE cEOssmas. 



Notices have been served upon this department of the filing of 
the following petitions for the appointment of special commission- 
ers for the abolition of grade crossings : — 

Barnstable County. 

Bourne, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Bourne Neck crossing. James E. Cotter, Eben D. Crocker 
and Rufus A. Soule appointed commissioners. Commission- 
ers' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's 
second report filed. Pending. 

Harwich. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Com- 
pany, petitioner. Petition for abolition of Main Street 
crossing. Alpheus Sanford, Prescott Keyes and Harry 
Southworth appointed commissioners. Commissioners' re- 
port filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's 
report filed. Pending. 

Wellfleet and Eastham^ Directors of Old Colony Railroad Com- 
pany, petitioners. Petition for abolition of certain grade 
crossings in Wellfleet and Eastham. George L. Rogers, 
Louis A. Frothingham and Franz H. Krebs appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Wade Keyes ap- 
pointed auditor. Pending. 

Berkshire County. 

Adams. Hoosac Valley Street Railway Company, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of Commercial Street crossing in Adams. 
Pending. 

North Adams. Hoosac Valley Street Railway Company, petition- 
ers. Petition for abolition of Main Street crossing, known 
as Braytonville crossing, in North Adams. Pending. 

Williamstown. Hoosac Valley Street Railway Company, petition- 
ers. Petition for the abolition of a grade crossing in Wil- 
liamstown, near the Fitchburg Railroad station. Pending. 



88 ATTORNEY-GENP]RAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Lee, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Lang- 
don's crossing in Lee. Wade Keyes, Thomas W. Kennefick 
and Luther Dean appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Lenox, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of grade 
crossings in Lenox. Pending. 

Hinsdale, Selectmen of, and Directors of Boston & Albany Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Bul- 
lard's Church Street and Pierce's grade crossings in Hinsdale. 
Thomas W. Kennefick, William Sullivan and Charles M. 
Ludden appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Ralph H. Ellis appointed auditor. Auditor's second 
report filed. Pending. 

Pittsfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Holmes Road crossing. William W. McClench, 
Charles N. Clark and Edmund K. Turner appointed commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Pittsfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, and Directors of Boston & 
Albany Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for the 
abolition of Hubbard and Gates avenues and Jason Street 
crossings in Pittsfield. Thomas W. Kennefick, William 
Sullivan and Charles M. Ludden appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Patrick J. Ashe appointed 
auditor, Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Pittsfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Merrill crossing in Pittsfield. Pending. 

Richmond and West Stockbridge, Selectmen of, petitioners. Joint 
petition for abolition of Griffin and Arnold's crossings in 
Richmond and West Stockbridge. Joseph Bennett, Charles 
Almy and John C. Crosby appointed commissioners. Clif- 
ford Brigham, auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

West Stockbridge. Directors of New York, New Haven & 
Hartford Railroad Company et al., petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Potter's crossing in West Stockbridge. Richard 
W. Irwin, Henry W. Ashley and Edmund K. Turner ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. F. 
H. Cande appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

West Stockbridge. Directors of New York, New Haven & 
Hartford Railroad Company et al.^ petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of State line crossing in West Stockbridge. Rich- 
ard W. Irwin, Henry W. Ashley and Edmund K. Turner ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Frank 
H. Cande appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 89' 



Bristol County. 

Attleborough. pirectors of Old Colony Railroad, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of South Main Street crossing in Attle- 
borough. George W. Wiggin, A. P. Martin and C. A. Allen 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. C. 
H. Cooper appointed auditor. Auditor's third report filed. 
Pending. 

Attleborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
West Street, North Main Street and other crossings in Attle- 
borough. James R. Dunbar, H. L. Parker and William 
Jackson appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Attleborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Park Street crossing in Attleborough. James R. Dunbar, 
Henry L. Parker and William Jackson appointed commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Easton. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 
Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of crossing at 
Eastondale. James E. Cotter, Wm. Rankin and Chas. D. 
Bray appointed commissioners. Fred Joy appointed auditor. 
Auditor's fourth report filed. Pending. 

Fall River, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Brownell Street crossing and other crossings in 
Fall River. John Q. A. Brackett, Samuel N. Aldrich and 
Charles A. Allen appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's 
fourth report filed. Pending. 

New Bedford, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of certain grade crossings in New Bedford. George 
F. Richardson, Horatio G. Herrick and Wm. Wheeler ap- 
pointed commissioners. Pending. 

Norton. Directors of Old Colony Railroad Company, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of grade crossing at Norton Furnace. 
Fred Joy, Chas. D. Bray and Charles M. Ludden appointed 
commissioners. Geo. D. Burrage appointed auditor. Audi- 
tor's first and final report filed. Pending. 

Taunton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of grade crossings in Taunton. William B. French, A. 
C. Southworth and Edward B. Bishop appointed commission- 
ers. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed 
auditor. Pending. 



VO ATTORXEY-GENEKAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Essex County. 

Beverly. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for the abolition of Federal Street croseing. 
Henry S. Milton, Edmund K. Turner and John M. Danforth 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. An- 
drew Fiske appointed auditor. Auditor's second and final 
report filed. Pending. 

Haverhill, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Washington Street and other crossings in Haver- 
hill. George W. Wiggin, William B. French and Edmund 
K. Turner appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Ipswich. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for abolition of Underhill crossing in Ipswich. 
George W. Wiggin, A. D. Bosson and Edmund K. Turner 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred 

y^^E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Ipswich, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of High 
Street crossing. Pending. 

Lynn, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Summer Street and other crossings on Saugus branch 
of Boston & Maine Railroad and Market Street and other 
crossings on main line. Pending. 

Manchester. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, 
petitioners. Petition for the abolition of the Summer Street 
crossing in Manchester. George P. Sanger, Edward B. 
Bishop and Chas. A. Putnam appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. Andrew Fiske appointed auditor. 
Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Salisbury. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, 
petitioners. Petition for the abolition of Hoks and Gerrish 
crossing in Salisbury. George W. Wiggin, William B. 
French and Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. 
Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Swampscott, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of Burrill Street crossing. Henry Wardwell, Charles W. 
Gay and Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. Charles A. Sayward appointed audi- 
tor. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMEXT — No. 12. 91 



Franklin County. 

Deerfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Sprouts crossing on Main Street, Deerfield. Timothy G. 
Spaulding, Edmund K. Turner and Franklin T. Hammond 
appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Greenfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of Allen Street crossing in Greenfield. Edmund K. Turner, 
Walter P. Hall and Fred D. Stanley appointed commissioners. 
Pending. 

Greenfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of Russell Street crossing in Greenfield. Edmund K. Turner, 
Walter P. Hall and Fred D. Stanley appointed commissioners. 
Pending. 

Montague, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Main Street crossing in Montague. Charles A. Allen, 
Henry G. Taft and Alpheus Sanford appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Frederick L. Greene 
appointed auditor. Auditor's first and final report filed. 
Pending. 

Nortbfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
River Street crossing in Nortbfield. Alpheus Sanford, 
Charles W. Hazelton and Newell D. Winter appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pending. 

Hampden County. 

Chester, Selectmen of, and Directors of Boston & Albany Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Hunting- 
ton Road crossing in Chester. Charles E. Hibbard, William 
Sullivan and Wm. P. Martin appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. Ralph W. Ellis appointed auditor. 
Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Chester, Selectmen of, and Directors of Boston & Albany Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Hunting- 
ton Street and White Chop crossing in Chester. Charles E. 
Hibbard, William Sullivan and William P. Martin appointed 
commissioners. Pending. 

Chicopee, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Plainfield and Exchange Street crossings and other 
crossings in Chicopee. Geo. W. Wiggin, Edmund K. Turner 
and Fred D. Stanley appointed commissioners. Commis- 
sioners' report filed. Timothy G. Spaulding appointed audi- 
tor. Auditor's third report filed. Pending. 



92 ATTORXEY-GENERAL'8 REPORT. [Jan. 

East Longmeadow, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Robeson's crossing in East Longmeadow. Fred Joy, 
Dana Malone and Edmund K. Turner appointed commission- 
ers. Commissioners' report filed. Dexter E. Tilley appointed 
auditor. Pending. 

Palmer, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Bur- 
ley's crossing in Palmer. Pending. 

Palmer, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Palmer and Belchertown Road crossing in Palmer. T. M. 
Brown, Chas. E. Hibbard and Henry G. Taft appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Stephen S. Taft 
appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Palmer, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Spring- 
field Road crossing, otherwise known as the Wire Mill cross- 
ing, in Palmer. William Turtle, Frederick L. Greene and 
John W. Mason appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Pending. 

Springfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Bay State Road and other crossings in Spring- 
field. George W. Richardson, Marshall Wilcox and George 
W. Wiggin appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Charles W. Bosworth appointed auditor. Auditor's 
first report filed. Pending. 

Springfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Pasco Road crossing in Springfield. Joseph 
Bennett, Samuel M. Cook and John A. Aiken appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. L. E. Hitch- 
cock appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Springfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of South End bridge crossing in Springfield. John 
W. Corcoran, John J. Flaherty and George F. Swain ap- 
pointed commissioners. Pending. 

Westfield. Boston & Albany Railroad Company, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of Coburn's and Morse's crossings in 
Westfield. Charles M. Ludden, William Sullivan and Rich- 
ard W. Irwin appointed commissioners. Commissioners' re- 
port filed. Ralph W. Ellis appointed auditor. Auditor's 
first report filed. Pending. 

Westfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition of 
North Elm Street crossing in Westfield. Charles E. Hib- 
bard, Joseph Bennett and George W. Wiggin appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Ralph W. Ellis 
appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 93 

Westfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for raising of bridge 
over Elm Street in Westfield. Thomas W. Proctor, John B. 
O'Donnell and Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Pending. 

Westfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for raising bridge 
over North Elm Street in Westfield. Geo. W. Wiggin, 
Frederick L. Greene and Edmund K. Turner appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pending. 

Hampshire County. 

Belchertown, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Holyoke Road crossing in Belchertown. George W. Wiggin, 
Fred D. Stanley and Edmund K. Turner appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Stephen S. Taft ap- 
pointed auditor. Pending. 

Belchertown, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of Leache's crossing in Belchertown. Augustus W. Locke, 
George W. Johnson and Joseph Bennett appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. William H. Clapp 
appointed auditor. Auditor's report filed. Pending. 

Hatfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
crossing on road leading from Main Street to depot in Hat- 
field. George W. Wiggin, Edmund K. Turner and Fred D. 
Stanley appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Arthur S. Kneil appointed auditor. Auditor's first 
and final report filed. 

Northampton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Laurel Park station crossing in Northampton. 
George W. Wiggin, Fred D, Stanley and Edmund K. Turner 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Ar- 
thur S. Kneil appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Northampton. Directors of Connecticut River Railroad Com- 
pany, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Lyman's crossing 
in Northampton. George W. Wiggin, Fred D. Stanley and 
Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. L. E. Hitchcock appointed auditor. Auditor's 
second report filed. Pending. 

Northampton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Grove Street and Earl Street crossings in North- 
ampton. Frederick L. Greene, S. S. Taft and James M. 
Sickman appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. William P. Hayes appointed auditor. Pending. 



94 ATTOENEY-GENERAL'8 KEPORT. [Jan. 

Ware, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Maple 
Street and Gilbertville Road crossings in Ware. Alpheus 
Sanford, Everett C. Bumpus and William W. McClench ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. John 
W. Mason appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Ware, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Gibbs 
crossing in Ware. George F. Tucker, George F. Kimball 
and Lawson Sibley appointed commissioners. Commission- 
ers' report filed. John W. Mason appointed auditor. Pending. 

Middlesex County. 

Acton, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Great 
Road crossing in Acton. Benj. W. Wells, Howard M. Lane 
and William B. Sullivan appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Acton, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of May- 
nard Road crossing in Acton. Pending. 

Arlington, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Grove Street crossing and other crossings in Arlington. 
Alpheus Sanford, Edmund K. Turner and S. Everett Tink- 
ham appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. 
Fred Joy appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. 
Pending. 

Ayer, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of West 
Main and Park streets crossing in Ayer. Frank P. Gould- 
ing, Charles A. Allen and Anson D. Fessenden appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Theodore C. Hurd 
appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Pending. 

Ayer, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Main 
Street crossing in Ayer. Pending. 

Bedford, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Con- 
cord Road crossing in Bedford. Fred D. Stanley, H. R. 
Coflfln and Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Theodore C. Hurd appointed 
auditor. Pending. 

Belmont, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Brighton Street, Concord Avenue and Trapelo Road crossings 
in Belmont. Pending. 

Cambridge. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, 
petitioners. Petition for abolition of Prison Point Street 
crossing in Cambridge. Henry S. Milton, Edward B. Bishop 
and Henry G. Taft appointed commissioners. Commission- 
ers' report filed. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 95 

Chelmsford, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Princeton Street crossing in Chelmsford. Edmund K. Tur- 
ner, Frederick W. Dallinger and Charles F. AVorcester ap- 
pointed commissioners. Pending. 

Concord, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Oliver Rice crossing and Hosmer's crossing in Concord. 
Theodore C Hurd, William Sullivan and Percy G. Bolster 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Henry 
L. Parker appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Everett. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for abolition of crossings at Broadway and 
Main Street in Everett. George W. Wiggin, Edmund K. 
Turner and Robert S. Gray appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. Pending. 

Lexington, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Grant Street crossing in Lexington. Alpheus Sanford, 
Edmund K. Turner and S. Everett Tinkham appointed com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Lowell, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Pawtucket Street crossing and other crossings in 
Lowell. George W. Wiggin, John W. Ellis and Samuel L. 
Minot appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. 
P. H. Cooney appointed auditor. Auditor's second report 
filed. Pending. 

Maiden. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for abolition of Med ford Street and other 
crossings in Maiden. Geo. W. Wiggin, Robert O. Harris 
and Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. Commis- 
sioners' report filed. Pending. 

Maiden, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Pleasant and Winter streets crossing in Maiden. 
Pending. 

Marlborough, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Hudson Street crossing in Marlborough. Walter 
Adams, Charles A. Allen and Alpheus Sanford appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pending. 

Natick. Directors of Boston & Albany Railroad Company, 
petitioners. Petition for abolition of Marion Street crossing 
and other crossings in Natick. George W. Wiggin, Larkin 
T. Trull and Joseph Bennett appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Theodore C. Hurd appointed 
auditor. Auditor's sixth report filed. Pending. 



96 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Natick. Boston & Worcester Street Railway Company, petitioners. 
Petition for alteration of Worcester Street crossing in Natick. 
Geo. W. Wiggin, Edmund K. Turner and Larkin T. Trull 
appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Newton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for the 
abolition of Glen Avenue and nine other crossings in Newton. 
Geo. W. Wiggin, T. C. Mendenhall and Edmund K. Turner 
appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Newton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for the 
abolition of Concord Street and Pine Grove Avenue crossings 
in Newton. George W. Wiggin, T. C. Mendenhall and 
Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Newton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Oak Street and Linden Street crossings in Newton. 
Pending. 

North Reading, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Main Street crossing in North Reading. Alpheus Sanford, 
George N. Poor and Louis M. Clark appointed commissioners. 
Pending. 

Somerville, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Somerville Avenue grade crossing in Somerville. 
Pending. 

Somerville, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Park Street, Dane Street and Medford Street 
crossings in Somerville. Pending. 

Wakefield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Hanson Street Crossing in Wakefield. Pending. 

Waltham, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Moody Street crossing in Waltham. Pending. 

Waltham, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of South Street crossing in Waltham. Pending. 

Watertown, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Grove Street crossing in Watertown. Halsey J. Boardman, 
Charles A. Allen and Augustus P. Martin appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Theodore C. Hurd ap- 
pointed auditor. Auditor's final report filed. 

Norfolk County. 
Canton, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Wash- 
ington Street crossing in Canton. Arthur H. Wellman, Ru- 
fus A. Soule and William Wheeler appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. (Commissioners decided that 
no action was necessary.) 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 97 

Dedham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition of 
Eastern Avenue and D wight Street crossings in Dedham. 
Alpheus Sanford, Charles Mills and J. Henry Reed appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones 
appointed auditor. Pending. 

Dedham. Directors of Old Colony Railroad Company, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of River Street and Whiting Avenue 
crossings in Dedham. Augustus P. Martin, Charles A. Allen 
and Fred Joy appointed commissioners. Commissioners re- 
port filed. C. H. Cooper appointed auditor. Auditor's sup- 
plemental report filed. Pending. 

Dedham, Selectmen of, and Directors of New York, New Haven 
& Hartford Railroad Company, petitioners. Petitions for 
abolition of East Street, Walnut Street and Vernon Street 
crossings in Dedham, consolidated with petitions to abolish 
Milton Street crossing in Hyde Park. Samuel N. Aldrich, 
E. B. Bishop and H. C. Southworth appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. 
Auditor's twelfth report filed. Pending. 

Hyde Park and Dedham, consolidated petitions. See Ded- 
ham. 

Hyde Park, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Fairmount Avenue and Bridge Street crossings in Hyde Park. 
Pending. 

Medway, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Vil- 
lage Street crossing in Medway. Arthur Lyman, George D. 
Burrage and Alpheus Sanford appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Edmund H. Talbot appointed 
auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Pending. 

Milton, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Cen- 
tral Avenue crossing in Milton. Pending. 

Needham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Charles River Street crossing in Needham. Pending. 

Norwood, Selectmen of, and Directors of New York, New Haven 
& Hartford Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Chapel Street, Washington Street and Guild 
Street crossings in Norwood. Henry A. Wyman, James F. 
C. Hyde and Charles E. C. Breck appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Albert A. Avery appointed 
auditor. Auditor's seventh report filed. Pending. 

Sharon, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Depot 
Street crossing in Sharon. William B. Durant, Fred Joy and 
Charles D. Bray appointed commissioners. Pending. 



98 ATTORNEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Walpole, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Oak 
Street crossing and other crossings in Walpole. Dana Ma- 
lone, Edmund K. Turner and Henry A. Wyman appointed 
commissioners. Pending. 

Plymouth County. 

Abington. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Central Street crossing in Abinglon. Alplieus Sanford, 
Erastus Worthington, Jr., and Edward B. Bishop appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones 
appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Pend- 
ing. 

Hingham. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Rockland 
Street crossing in Hingham. Winfield S. Slocum, Alpheus 
Sanford and Henry C. Southworth appointed commissioners. 
Pending. 

Marshfield. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
crossing near Marshfield station. Alpheus Sanford, J. Albert 
Brackett and Frank T. Daniels appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed audi- 
tor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Middleborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Centre Street, Grove Street and Main Street crossings in 
Middleborough. Alpheus Sanford, Edward B. Bishop and 
Samuel H. Hudson appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's 
fourth report filed. Pending. 

Scituate. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Water 
Street and Union Street crossings in Scituate. Arthur H. 
Wellman, Edmund K. Turner and Oscar A. Marden appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones 
appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Pending. 

Suffolk Couyity. 
Boston. Directors of Old Colony Railroad Company, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of Tremont Street crossing in Boston. 
Samuel N. Aldrich, H. C Southworth and Edward B. Bishop 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred 
E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's twenty-first report 
filed. Pendins;. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 99 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Austin Street, Cambridge Street and Perkins Street 
crossings in Charlestown. Henry S. Milton, Edward B. 
Bishop and Henry G. Taft appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. Fred Joy appointed auditor. Audi- 
tor's second report filed. Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Congress Street crossing in Boston. George W. VViggin, 
Edward B. Bishop and Charles A. Allen appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed 
auditor. Auditor's nineteenth report filed. Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Dorchester Avenue crossing in Boston. F. N. Gillette, 
Charles S. Lilley and Charles Mills appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Fred Joy appointed auditor. 
Auditor's twenty-third report filed. Pending. 

Boston. Directors of Old Colony Railroad Company, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of Codman Street crossing in Boston. 
George VV. Wiggin, Charles A. Allen and William M. Butler, 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Henry 
S. Milton appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. 
Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Blue Hill Avenue and Oakland Street crossings in 
Boston. William B. French, Arthur H. Wellman and George 

A. Kimball appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's sixth 
report filed. Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of all crossings in East Boston. George W. Wiggin, William 

B. French and Edward B. Bishop appointed commissioners. 
Pending. 

Revere, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Win- 
throp Avenue crossing in Revere. George W. Wiggin, Everett 

C. Bumpus and Charles D. Bray appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed audi- 
tor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Worcester County. 
Auburn, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Southhridge Street crossing in Auburn. Alpheus Sanford, 
John F. JMcCusker and Bertram T. Wheeler appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. George D. Burrage 
appointed auditor. Auditor's third and final report filed. 



100 ATTORNFA-GENEKAL'8 REPORT. [.)aii. 

Auburn, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Cliapin's crossing in Auburn. Harvey N. Shepard, George 
K. Tufts and Charles A. Allen appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. A. J. Bartholomew appointed 
auditor. Pending. 

Blackstone, Selectmen of, and Directors of New York, New Haven 
& Hartford Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Main Street crossing in Blackstone. George W. 
Wiggin, Charles A. Allen and Alpheus Sanford appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Irvin McD. 
Garfield appointed auditor. Auditor's first and final report 
filed. 

Boylston, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
crossing over road between Boylston and Clinton. William 
B. Durant, Edward B. Bishop and O. W. Rugg appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Chas. R. 
Johnson appointed auditor. Auditor's report filed. Pend- 
ing. 

Fitchburg, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Putnam Street crossing in Fitchburg. Frank P. 
Goulding, Charles A, Allen and Charles M. Thayer appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. George S. 
Taft appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. 
Pending. 

Fitchburg, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Laurel Street crossing in Fitchburg. Frank P. 
Goulding, Charles A. Allen and Charles M. Thayer appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. George S. 
Taft appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. 
Pending. 

Gardner, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Union 
Street crossing in Gardner. Frank P. Goulding, Charles A. 
Allen and Franklin L. Waters appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Pending, 

Holden, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Daw- 
son's crossing and Cedar Swamp crossing in Holden. Charles 
A. Allen, Arthur P. Rugg and Henry G. Taft appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pending. 
Hubbardston, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 

Depot Road crossing in Hubbardston. Pending. 
Leominster, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Lancaster Street crossing in Leominster. Alpheus Sanford, 
Charles A. Allen and Seth P. Smith appointed commission- 
ers. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed 
auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 101 

Millbury, Selectmen of, and Selectmen of Sutton, consolidated 
petition for abolition of Daniels crossing in Millbury and 
Yellow House crossing in Sutton. James E. Cotter, Alpheus 
Sanford and Charles A. Allen appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. 
Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Northbridge and Uxbridge, joint petition of Selectmen of. Peti- 
tion for abolition of Whitin's station crossing. Alpheus 
Sanford, Edward B. Bishop and Harry C. Southworth ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred 
E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. 
Pending. 

Northborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Westborough Hospital station crossing in Northborough. 
Thomas Post, William Wheeler and Alpheus Sanford ap- 
pointed commissioners. Pending. 

Southborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of crossing on road leading from Southborough to Hopkiuton. 
George C. Travis, James W. McDonald and William Sulli- 
van appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. 
Theodore C. Hurd appointed auditor. Auditor's first report 
filed. Pending. 

Southborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
crossing on road from Southborough to Framingham. Pending. 

Southborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Main Street crossing at Fayville, in Southborough. Pending. 

Sutton and Millbury, consolidated petition of Selectmen of both 
towns. See Millbury. 

Templeton, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Baldwinsville crossing in Templeton. Charles Brimblecom, 
Charles A. Allen and Edward P. Chapin appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Henry L. Parker 
appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Pending. 

Uxbridge. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of grade 
crossings in Uxbridge. George W. Wiggin, Timothy G. 
Spaulding and Albert F. Noyes appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. 
Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Warren. Directors of Boston & Albany Railroad Company, 
petitioners. Petition for abolition of South Street crossing 
in Warren. George W. Wiggin, Wm. L. Clark and Joseph 
Bennett appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. William B. Harding appointed auditor. Auditor's sec- 
ond report filed. Pending. 



102 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Westborough, Selectmen of, and Directors of Boston & Albany 
Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Main Street and Summer Street crossings in Westborough. 
George W. Wiggin, George N. Smalley and Joseph Bennett 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. H. 
L. Parker appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. 
Allowance of second report pending before Supreme Judicial 
Court. 'Pending. 

Worcester. Directors of Boston & Albany Railroad Company, 
petitioners. Petition for abolition of Webster Street, Lud- 
low Street, Sutton Lane and Heard Street crossings in 
Worcester. Harvey N. Sbepard, Frederick Brooks and 
Joseph S. Ludlam appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. James A. Stiles appointed auditor. Auditor's 
amended second report filed. Pending. 

Worcester, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Hamilton Street crossing in Worcester. Augus- 
tus P. Martin, James D. Colt and Edmund K. Turner ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. James 
A. Stiles appointed auditor. Auditor's report filed. Pend- 
ing. 

Worcester, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Grafton Street crossing and eight other cross- 
ings, including alterations of Union Station. James R. Dun- 
bar, Henry P. Moulton and George F. Swain appointed 
commissioners. Pending. 

The following corporations having made voluntary application 
to the Supreme Judicial Court for dissolution, and having given 
the Attorney-General due notice of the petition, and the Tax 
Commissioner having certified that they were not indebted to the 
Commonwealth for taxes, the Attorney-General waived right to 
be heard : — 

A. Gunseuhiser Company. 

A. M. Brown Coal Company. 

A. Stowell & Co., Incorporated. 

Alaska Knitting Company. 

Allen Gymnasium Company. 

Auburn Mills Company. 

Baker Lead Manufacturing Company. 

Ballon Yarn Converting Company. 

Banker & Tradesman Company. 

Bay State Co-operative Creamery Association. 

Belchertown Shoe Manufacturing Company. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 103 

Berkshire Beef Company. 

Boston & Bangor Steamship Company. 

Boston Can Company. 

Boston Spar Company. 

Boston Transit Company. 

Cape Ann Drop Forge Works. 

Composite Brake Shoe Company. 

Crocker Manufacturing Company. 

Crompton Loom Works. 

Cunningham Iron Works Company. 

Davenport & Hersey Company. 

Drivers' Union Ice Company. 

Dwelling House Insurance Company. 

Enterprise and Journal Company. 

Essex Cycle Company. 

First National Fire Insurance Company. 

Forehand Arms Company. 

Forrest Grove Company. 

Gardner Music Hall Company. 

Gilbert Brothers Company. 

Glasgo Thread Company. 

Glove Nail Company. 

Granby Co-operative Creamery Association. 

H. W. Clark Cigar Manufacturing Company. 

Hadley Company. 

Harrison C. Hall Company. 

Harvard Piano Company. 

Hill, Whitney & Wood Company. 

Independent Fraternal Union. 

Jay B. Reynolds Shoe Company. 

Kearns & Co., Incorporated. 

Knowles Loom Works. 

Lakeside Park Company. 

Lawrence Riding Park Association. 

Merrick Thread Company. 

Middleby Oven Company. 

Pairpoint Manufacturing Company. 

People's Steamboat Company. 

Pettee Machine Works. 

Prospect Co-operative Society. 

Revere Copper Company. 

Robbins Anchor Tripper Company. 

Robinson Iron Company. 

Rogers & Wood Company. 



104 ATTORNEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Ruddy Thread Companj^ 
Sea View Hotel and Wharf Company. 
Smith & Stoughton Company. 
South Truro Fish Weir Company. 
Springfield Supply Company. 
Standard Button Company. 
Star Foundry Company. 
Star Mills Corporation. 
Stockbridge Marble Company. 
Taunton Button Company. 
Thomas G. Plant Company. 
Wachusett Creamery Association. 
Wales Bookbinding Company. 
Wales French Shoe Company. 
Warren Thread Company. 
Weeks & Potter Company. 

The following corporations, reported to this department by the 
Tax Commissioner for delinquency in making their tax returns 
under R. L., c. 14, § 37, have been compelled, without the neces- 
sity of a suit at law, to comply with the statute : — 

A. A. Mills Company. 
Arlington Co-operative Association. 
American Citizen Company. 
Atlas Wire Works. 
Beacon Manufacturing Company. 
Block Plant Electric Light Company. 
Boston & Suburban Express Company. 
Boston Electric Company. 
Boston Excursion Steamship Company. 
Boston Printing Company. 
Boston Traveller Company. 
Butler Mill. 

Cyrus T. Clark Company. 
Dillon Machine Company. 
E. A. Hall Publishing Company. 
E. Stebbins- Manufacturing Company. 
E. Z. Waist Company. 
Eastern Printing and Engraving Company. 
Essex Cycle Company. 

Farnumsville Grocery and Provision Company, Incorpo- 
rated. 
Flynt Building and Construction Company. 
Franklin Educational Company. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 105 

George D. Emerson Company. 

Oilman Snow Guard Company. 

Globe Industrial Co-operative Society. 

Greenwich Bleachery. 

H. M. Kinports Company. 

H. O. Nute Company. 

Harding-Taylor Company. 

Holmes & Blanchard Company. 

Holyoke Steam and Gas Pipe Company. 

Horse Whip Company. 

Hutchins Narrow Fabric Company. 

Independent Whip Company. 

International Publishing Company. 

J. H. Williams Wall Paper Company. 

James B. Wood & Son Company. 

Kimball Brothers Company. 

L. V. Calahan Shoe Company. 

Manet Beach Steamboat Company. 

Marblehead Building Association. 

Marlborough Gas Light Company. 

Massachusetts Box Company. 

McCusker Company. 

Merchants Warehouse Company. 

Metropolitan Bolt Company. 

Milford Water Company. 

Minards Liniment Manufacturing Company. 

Murray Cone Shoe Company. 

Newport Transfer Express Company. 

Newton Provision Company. 

Norcross Brothers Company. 

Norwood, Canton & Sharon Street Railway Company. 

Nute-Hallett Company. 

Oak Grove Creamery Company. 

Oakham Street Railway Company. 

Plymouth County Railroad Company. 

Pratt Manufacturing Company. 

Prentice Brothers Company. 

Putnam Company. 

Quinsigamond Lake Steamboat Company. 

R. H. Smith Manufacturing Company. 

Rawson & N. Morrison Manufacturing Company. 

Revere Roller Coaster Company. 

Richards & Co., Incorporated. 

Rockland Factory Building Association. 



106 ATTORNEY-GEXERAL'8 REPORT. [Jan. 

Rutland Street Railway Company. 
Smith & Lovett Company. 
Smith & Stoughton Company. 
Smith-Warren Company. 
South Bay Improvement Company. 
South Bay Wharf and Terminal Company. 
Springfield Drop Forging Company. 
Springfield Machine Screw Company. 
Stoughton Gas and Electric Company. 
T. F. Little Oil Company. 
Templeton Street Railway Company. 
Union Desk Company. 
W. E. Tillotson Manufacturing Company. 
Waltham Watch Tool Company of Springfield, Massa- 
chusetts. 
Wellington Piano Case Company. 
West Ware Paper Company. 
Western Union Telegraph Company. 
Worcester & Shrewsbury Railroad Company. 
Ziegler Electric Company. 

The following corporations, reported to this department by the 
Commissioner of Corporations for delinquency in filing the certificate 
of condition for 1901, required by R. L.,c. 110, § 51, have been com- 
pelled, without the necessity of suit, to comply with the statute : — 

A. O. Speare Company. 

A. T. Fairbanks Confectionery Company. 

Acme Manufacturing Company. 

Adams Electric Light and Power Company. 

American Pad and Paper Company. 

Bay State Morocco Company. 

Biddle & Smart Company. 

Blue Hill Granite Company. 

Bradley Fertilizer Company. 

BuUard Camera Company. 

Carlow & Putnam Company. 

Carriage Gear and Wheel Company. 

Child Acme Cutter and Press Company. 

Citizens' Telephone and Telegraph Company. 

Coates Clipper Manufacturing Company. 

Daily News Company. 

Durgin Grocery and Provision Company. 

Dwight Printing Company. 

E. G. Rutty Company. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT— Xo. 12. 10' 

Fifield Tool Company. 

Fisher-Churchill Company. 

Fisk Rubber Company. 

Fitchburg Manufacturing Company. 

Frank Keene Company. 

Franklin Telegraph Company. 

Frederick Kendall Company. 

George D. Emerson Company. 

Glasgow Manufacturing Company. 

H. A. Lothrop Manufacturing Company. 

Hingham Seam Face Granite Company. 

Holly Whip Company. 

Hampden Automatic Telephone^Company. 

Hutchins Narrow P'abric Company. 

Leland Filter Company. 

Lyons Granite Company. 

Maiden Mail Company. 

Marshall Engine Company. 

Massasoit Whip Company. 

Mattakisset Hall Association. 

New England & Savannah Steamship Company. 

Newark Shoe Company. 

Newburyport Herald Company. 

Olympic Amusement Company. 

Page Electric Company. 

Persons Manufacturing Company. 

Peter Wood Dyeing Company. 

Political Publishing Company. 

R. H. Smith Manufacturing Company. 

Randal Faichney Company. 

Rochdale Hall Company. 

Royal Steam Heater Company. 

S. A. Freeman Company. 

Simonds Rolling Machine Company. 

South Hadley Falls Electric Light Company. 

Springfield Coliseum Company. 

Taunton Evening News. 

Warren Specialty Manufacturing Company. 

Wesley B. Churchill Company. 

West Chop Steamboat Company. 

Whittier Cotton Mills. 

Williamstown Gas Company. 

Wright & Colton Wire Cloth Company. 

Ziegler Electric Company. 



108 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

The following corporations, reported to this department by the 
Commissioner of Corporations for delinquency in filing the certifi- 
cate of condition for 1902 required by R. L., c. 110, § 51, have 
been compelled, without the necessity of suit, to comply with the 
statute : — 

Adams Marble Company. 
Agawam Ice Company. 
Albermarle Slate Company. 
Allen Machine Company. 
Amesbury Opera House Company. 
Baker Hunnewell Company. 
Boston Oregon Mast Company. 
Boston Real Estate Association. 
Brimfield Hotel Company. 
Burnett Paint Company. 
Cape Ann Printing Company. 
Carter Rice & Co., Corporation. 
Commonwealth Shoe and Leather Company. 
Cook & Grew Company. 
Cutter Tower Company. 
Damon Safe and Iron Works Company. 
_ Dillon Machine Company. 

Draper Machine Tool Company. 

Flynt Building and Construction Company. 

Franklin Educational Company. 

Hollingsworth & Vose Company. 

J. P. Jordan Paper Company. 

Jewett Piano Company. 

K. & W. Company. 

Knowles Freeman Fish Company. 

Leicester Grocery Company. 

Mansfield Co-operative Furnace Company. 

Martha's Vineyard Electric Light and Power Company. 

Massachusetts Investment Company. 

Massachusetts Title Insurance Company. 

Murray Cone Shoe Company. 

New England Dredging Company. 

New England Horse Exchange Company. 

Oak Grove Creamery Companj^ 

Old Colony Rubber Company. 

Olympic Amusement Company. 

P. P. Emory Manufacturing Company. 

Peter Ross Company. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 109 

Quinsigamond Co-operative Baking Company. 

Robbins Spring Water Company. 

Roxbury Central Wharf Company. 

Samuel Winslow Skate Manufacturing Company. 

Silvey-Wyckoff Company. 

Shady Hill Nursery Company. 

Smith- Warren Company. 

Springfield Drop Forging Company. 

Springfield Steam Power Company. 

Standard Cloth Meter Company. 

Sterling Worsted Company. 

T. F. Little Oil Company. 

Troy White Granite Company. 

Union Fire Works Company. 

W. E. Tillotson Manufacturing Company. 

Wakefield Water Company. 

Woodbury Company. 



110 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Cases arising in the Pkobate Courts under 
THE Collateral Inheritance Tax Act. 



Barnstable County. 

Allen, Carrie Estelle, estate of. Samuel N. Aldrich et al., execu- 
tors. Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. 
Assented to extension. 

Howes, Elijah S., estate of. Allen H. Knowles, executor. Peti- 
tion for extension of time for payment of tax. Pending. 

Bristol County. 

Cushing, John K., estate of. Hope G. Gifford, executrix. Peti- 
tion for extension of time for payment of tax. 

Dyer, Mary C, estate of. William H. Dyer, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. Attor- 
ney-General waived right to be heard. 

Franklin, William A., estate of. Peddie Franklin, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Goodwin, Prudence R., estate of. Milton Reed, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Decree. 

Hart, Mary A., estate of. Ephraim B. Hart, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Haskins, Edward T., estate of. Theodore Haskins, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Healy, Joseph, estate of. James M. Morton, Jr., administrator. 
Petition for reappraisal. Assented to the appointment of 
Abram G. Hart as appraiser. 

Hood, Francis B., estate of. Josephine E. Chick, executrix. 
Petition for appointment of appraisers. Assented to appoint- 
ment of George F. Brigham, Ronald Bean and 8imeon Borden 
as appraisers. 

Livsey, Elizabeth K., estate of. Mary H. Richardson, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. Pending. 



1908.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT— Xo. 12. Ill 

Peck, Henry W., estate of. Theodore F. Tillinghast, administra- 
tor. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massa- 
chusetts. Attorney-G-eneral waived right to be heard. 

Sisson, Harriet S., estate of, John A. Seabury, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Pending. 

Smith, Lucinda W., estate of. Wallace 8. Allis, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Essex County. 

Abbott, Helen J., estate of. Elizabeth M. Abbott, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bailey, Harriet N., estate of. George E. Bailey, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bain, Clara T., estate of. Edith M. Colby, petitioner. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Barrett, James-, estate of. Irving M. Heath, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Batchelder, Dorotha A., estate of. David F. Batchelder, execu- 
tor. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massa- 
chusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bean, Alice M., estate of. George W. Bean, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Blackburn, John H., estate of. Clara E. Bickford, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard.' 

Bradley, John C, estate of. Charles H. Bradley, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Bradley, Mary W., estate of. John Bradley, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Brown, Mary E., estate of. Amasa J. Cate, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Brown, Sarah K., estate of. Edward H. Brown, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. License 
granted. 



112 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Bruce, Emily T , estate of. Seth Bruce, administrator. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Carleton, George H., estate of. Alice C. Noyes, legatee. Petition 
for appointment of appraisers to reappraise estate. Pending. 

Chase, Charles A., estate of. Amos C. Chase, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Chase, Elihu F., estate of. Joseph S. Howe, executor. Petition 
for instructions. Pending. 

Coggswell, Sarah F., estate of. Samuel W. Hopkinson, executor. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Couch, Nathaniel B., estate of. Lucy J. Couch, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Couch, Sally, estate of. Charles M. Heath, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts- 
License granted. 

Crane, Gilman, estate of. Maria A. Bartlett, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Currier, Charles E., estate of. Frank A. Currier, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Davis, Solomon H., estate of. Henry Burnham, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Dawson, Ebenezer, estate of. Henry A. Flint, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Dickson, Walter S., estate of. First Universalist Society, peti- 
tioners. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Dimond, Mary B., estate of. J. Warren Sanborn, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Dinsmoor, Margaret M. S., estate of. Helen L. Dinsmoor, ad- 
ministratrix. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Dow, Lorenzo, estate of. Elizabeth. A. Dow, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Duncan, Caroline, estate of. John D. Bryant, executor. Claim 
for inheritance tax and interest on several legacies, amount- 
ing to $4,300. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUIVIENT — No. 12. 113 

Eastman, Melinda, estate of. Mary A. Swasey, administratrix. 
Petition for li|jense to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Emerson, Henry, estate of. Annie M. H. Emerson, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Pending. 

Emmerton, E. Augustus, estate of. Henry M. Batchelder, trustee. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Pending. 

Farley, Gustavus, Jr., estate of. Katherine Sedgwick Farley, 
executrix. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Fellows, Mary D., estate of. Fred S. Johnson, guardian. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Pending. 

Fellows, Mary J., estate of. Mabel J. Brickett, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Fernald, Harriett W., estate of. Levi Woodbury, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Fitz, Elizabeth H., estate of. Isabelle H. Fitz, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Garden, Sarah P., estate of. Josiah F. Garden, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Green, Charlotte F., estate of. John P. M. Green, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Hunkins, Sarah E., estate of. Etta M. Tupper, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Jenness, Almira, estate of. Alice C. Jenness, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Jenness, David, estate of. Emily R. Jenness, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Jordan, Clara S., estate of. B. C. Jordan et al.^ executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Kaliher, Mary, estate of. Greenleaf K. Bartlett, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 



114 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Kelley, Samuel P., estate of. George L. A. Kelley, administra- 
tor. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massa- 
chusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

King, Sarah M., estate of. Benjamin T. Bartlett, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Leavitt, Samuel D., estate of. Emily C. Leavitt, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Leighton, Matilda P., estate of. Charles M. Sawyer, executor. 
Petition for allowance of will. Pending. 

Lougee, Ella M., estate of. Stella G. Colbarth, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Pending. 

Mather, Rebecca Ford, estate of. Petition to quiet title to real 
estate conveyed under license to sell. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Meader, Hannah W., estate of. William S. Neal, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 

Morrison, Fred L., estate of. Ellen M. Morrison, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Paine, Mary J., estate of. Selma Ware Paine et al.^ executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Pike, Mary A., estate of. Charles W. Garland, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. License 
granted. 

Prescott, Lydia A., estate of. M. Perry Sargent, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Randall, John O., estate of. John A. Morrill, petitioner. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 

Ridgway, Henrietta B., estate of. Laurence Minot, administrator. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented 
to extension. 

Roberts, Nancy, estate of. Abbie J. Roberts, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Rowe, Laura B., estate of. Frank O. Towle, administrator. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 115 

Saltonstall, Georgiana C, estate of. Francis H. Appleton, exec- 
utor. Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. 
Extension assented to. 

Sanborn, Olive D., estate of. John W. Ashman, executor. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Shaw, Charles E., estate of. Ephraim G. Flanders, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Shaw, Mary J., estate of. Ephraim G. Flanders, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Smith, Dana Z., estate of . Tristram T. Savery, executor. Peti- 
tion for extension of time for payment of tax. Extension 
assented to. 

Smith, Elizabeth, estate of. Lydia E. Davis, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Stockman, Joseph W., estate of. Joseph J. J. Sawyer, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Storey, Thomas, estate of. Jessie Storey, petitioner. Petition 
for extension of time for payment of inheritance tax. Attor- 
ney-General waived right to be heard. 

Swansey, Josephine A., estate of. August Berg, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Tilton, Delcinia H., estate of. George W. Til ton, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Towne, Asa P., estate of. George A. Woodbury, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

AVeare, John M., estate of. Horace I. Bartlett, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Wilcomb, George W., estate of. Edmund J. Wilcomb, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Williams, Charles, estate of. Jennie B. Rand, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Winn, Alonzo N., estate of. George W. Paul, administrator. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate. License granted. 



116 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Wormsted, Enoch, estate of. Samuel A. S. Wormsted, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Franklin County, 

Alexander, Amanda M., estate of. Joseph R. Colton et al., 
executors. Petition for instructions. Tax claimed. 

Manning, Horace, estate of. Petition for allowance of final ac- 
count. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Pratt, Henry L., estate of. Edward D. Stoughton et al., executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Hampden County, 
Chapin, Laura P., estate of. Hiram N. Hay ward, executor. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 
Chase, James, estate of. Flora E. Tuttle et al., executrices. Pe- 
tition for allowance of inventory. Attorney-General waived 
right to be heard on payment of tax. 
Crockett, Sarah L., estate of. H. L. Harding et al, executors. 
Petition of Treasurer and Receiver-General to collect tax on 
said estate. Pending. 
Deane, Harriet R., estate of. Julia E. Deane, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 
"Fairbanks, Arthur W. Gates, estate of. Amelia M. Ely, resid- 
uary legatee. Petition for reappraisal. Assented to the 
appointment of Levi S. Power as appraiser. 
Flagg, Martha G., estate of. Minnie Etta Stebbins, legatee. 
Petition for reappraisal. Assented to appointment of N. D. 
Winter, W. H. Dexter and George R. Bond as appraisers. 
Gaylord, Emerson, estate of. James L. Pease et al., executors. 

Petition for instructions. Decree. 
Greenleaf, Elizabeth C, estate of. George W. Cate, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Pending. 
Harding, Samuel, estate of. Herbert N. Harding, executor. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 
Hooker, Alfred E., estate of. Alfred M. Copeland, administrator. 
Petition for allowance of final account and distribution. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCIBIENT — No. 12. 117 

Loomis, Arabella J. B., estate of. Charles H. Lawrence et a?., 
executors. Petition for license to receive personal estate 
in Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be 
heard. 

Loring, Sarah M., estate of. George Parker, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Marsh, Charles S., estate of. Charles A. Gleason, executor. 
Petition for instructions. Answer filed claiming tax. 

Perkins, William S., estate of. Edwin S. Brooks, petitioner. 
Petition for appointment of appraiser. Assented to appoint- 
ment of Oscar B. Ireland as appraiser. 

Pyne, Desire A., estate of. Edward K. Bodwitha, executor. 
Petition for instructions. Answer claiming tax. 

Searle, Mary R., estate of. Helen V. Searle, legatee. Petition 
for reappraisal. Assented to appointment of N. D. Winter, 
W. H. Dexter and George R. Bond as appraisers. 

Willard, Sarah Bryant, estate of. AVilliam M. Willard, petitioner. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Pending. 

Hampshire County. 
Bridgeman, Susan, M.D., estate of. Herbert T. Cowles, admin- 
istrator. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Middlesex County. 

Abbott, Mary Valentine, estate of. Laurence F. Abbott, execu- 
tor. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massa- 
chusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Albee, Ruth R., estate of. John A. Fletcher et als.^ executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Albee, Ruth R , estate of. James A. Fletcher et al, executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bosworth, George W., estate of. Amy C. Bos worth et «L, execu- 
tors. Petition for license to receive personalestate in Massa- 
chusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Braley, Margaret M., estate of. Henry C. Howard, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Braley, Margaret M., estate of. Henry C. Howard, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 



118 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Brown, Fannie N., estate of. Charles M. Jones, executor. 
Petition for license to receiv^e personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Chase, Nancy A , estate of. Henry H. Holt, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Clark, George F., estate of. F. C. Nash, executor. Petition for 
reappraisal. F. T. Hammond appointed appraiser. 

Clark, Jeremiah, estate of. John C. Bennett, executor. Petition 
for instructions. Pending. 

Clary, Emma P., estate of. Alice G. Clary, executrix. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Clay, George A., estate of. Frank B. Livingstone, administrator. 
Petition for allowance of final account. No action taken. 

Cutter, Frederic A., estate of. Susan M. Cutter, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Darling, Sarah C, estate of. George P. Cook, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Pending. 

Davis, Lucinda F., estate of. Willie N. Davis, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Deechan, Mary, estate of. Henry E. Conry, administrator. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Doe, William G., estate of. Laura E. A. Phelps, residuary lega- 
tee. Petition for reappraisal. Assented to the appointment 
of Allen M. Johnson, D. A. Ambrose and C. P>nest Judkins 
as appraisers. 

Dunn, Mary S., estate of. Anson W. Dunn, executor. Petition for 
license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Emerson, James E., estate of. Stella F. Emerson, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Folsom, Sarah F., estate of. Frances W. Stickney, administratrix. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Pending. 

Ford, Daniel S., estate of. William A. Monroe et al.^ executors. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of inheritance tax. 
Decree accordingly. 

French, Eben, estate of. Albert B. Moore, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. - 119 

Greenwood, Sophronia, estate of. Charles J. Ellis, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Hardy, Arthur C, estate of. Adaline Frost, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Harris, Mary E., estate of. Mary J. Bartlett e^ aL, executrices. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Henry, Mehitable L., estate of. Arthur L. Bowker, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment 
of tax. 

Hight, Naomi, estate of. Elizabeth W. Butler, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Hobart, Eliza A., estate of. Nathaniel Hobart, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Hobart, Emily B., estate of. Richmond H. T. Taylor, adminis- 
trator. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Pending. 

James, Harriet, estate of. Electa M. Priest, executrix. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Knowles, George W., estate of. Anna M. Tasker, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Leavitt, Elizabeth C, estate of. Fred Smith et al., executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Littlehale, Rufus C, estate of. Sadie M. Littlehale, administra- 
trix. Petition for license to receive personal estate. Attor- 
ney-General waived right to be heard. 

Lovejoy, Sarah, estate of. Charles L. Perkham, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Long, Addie J., estate of. Erastus E. Button, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Maxwell, Lydia T., estate of. Henry F. Maxwell et al., 
executors. Petition for license to receive personal estate 
in Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be 
heard. 



120 ATTOKXEY-GEXERAL'S EEPORT. [Jan. 

McDonald, Helen M. Willey, estate of. Ernest L. Morandi, 
executor. Petition for instructions. Answer filed claiming 
tax. Pending. 

McDonald, Helen M. Willey, estate of. Chas. Palmer, legatee. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented 
to extension. 

McLane, Sarah C, estate of. John H. Clark, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Mowry, Dulcena P., estate of. Hoyt H. Green et al.^ executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 

Munroe, Alexander, estate of. Daniel A. Munroe, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Munroe, George D., estate of. George E. Munroe, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Paine, Julia B., estate of. Charles J. Paine, executor. Petition 
for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented to exten- 
sion. 

Paine, Julia B., estate of. Charles J. Paine, executor. Petition 
for instructions. Decree. 

Parker, Abby N., estate of. Charles H. Burke, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Prescott, Royal B., estate of. Harriet N. Prescott, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Roby, Warren G., estate of. George F. Piper et al., executors. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Ross, Martha J., estate of. Rebecca D. Ross et aL, executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Shannon, Mary, estate of. Francis Murdock et al.^ executors. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Shattuck, Alfred, estate of. Mary E. Shattuck, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Smith, M. Abby, estate of. Angelina A. Smith, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Stoddard, Anna M., estate of. Adna B. Stoddard, administra- 
trix. Petition for license to receive personal estate. Attor- 
ney-General waived right to be heard. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 121 

Tileston, Sarah Ann, estate of. Samuel C. Bennett et al., trus- 
tees. Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. 
Petition dismissed. 

Tileston, Sarah Ann, estate of. Petition of the Treasurer and 
Receiver-General to determine amount of inheritance tax 
due. Pending. 

Towne, Althea, estate of. James H. Fay, administrator. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

True, Lucretia T., estate of. Charles A. Jones, trustee. Petition 
for extension of time for payment of tax. Pending. 

Tukey, Augustine B., estate of. Isabel Tukey, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Upham, Gabriella S., estate of. James A. Reed, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Warren, Maria W., estate of. Charles H. Wight, executor. Peti- 
tion for appointment of an appraiser to reappraise estate. 
Assented to appointment of Willis A. Kingsbury as appraiser. 

Weber, Susan, estate of. George A. Weber, administrator. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Pending. 

Whitney, Edward, estate of. Charles A. Stone et at., trustees. 
Petition for appointment of arbitrator. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Whitney, Emaline H., estate of. Edwin A. Hildreth et als., 
executors. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Wilson, Mary AV., estate of. Boyd H. Wilson, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. License granted. 

Wilson, Royal, estate of. Charles C. Knight et aZ., executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Norfolk County, 

Capen, Barnabus D., estate of. David A. Hincks, administrator. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Cross, Marianna P., estate of. Charles R. Cross, executor. Pe- 
tition for extension of time for payment of tax. No action 
taken. 

James, Charles H., estate of. New England Trust Company, 
executor. Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. 
Assented to extension. 



122 ATTOEXEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Kent, Anne, estate of. Alexander Murchison, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Pending. 

O'Connell, Margaret, estate of. Mary O'Sullivan et al. , executrices. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Pending. 

Street, Sarah J., estate of. Charles S. Street et al.^ executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Plymouth County. 

Bisbee, Aelius Marcellus, estate of. Fidelity Trust Company, 
executors. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. License issued. 

Howard, Horatio, estate of. Eddy P. Dunbar et al., executors. 
Petition for instructions. Answer claiming tax. 

Keith, Priscilla D., estate of. Samuel E. Barrett, executor. Pe- 
tition for instructions. Decree. 

Perry, Edward Y., estate of. Petition for reappraisal. Assented 
to appointment of Alfred W. Putnam as appraiser. 

Suffolk County. 

Adams, Julius, estate of. John F. Cronan, administrator. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Pending. 

Alvord, Emma E., estate of. Joseph M. Trott, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of 
tax. 

Bachelder, Mary Abbie, estate of. Albert Bachelder, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bachelder, Sarah Jane, estate of. Albert Bachelder, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bachelder, AVarren S., estate of . Albert Bachelder, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Boardman, George A., estate of. Charles A. Boardman et al.., 
executors. Petition for license to receive personal estate 
in Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be 
heard. 

Boyd, Emma C, estate of. John A. Boyd, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 123 

Brackett. Joseph, estate of. Ezra M. Smith, administrator. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard upon payment of 
tax. 

Brackett, Sarah A., estate of. Ezra M. Smith, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 

Bradeen, Nancy S., estate of. Frank C. Dunklee, executor. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bradley, Gordon M., estate of. Parker R. Bradley, adminis- 
trator. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bridge, Nancy Church, estate of. Emma F. Burrill et al.^ trus- 
tees. Petition for reappraisal. Assented to the appointment 
of Percival A. Evans, Stanley M. Bolster and Pinckney 
Holbrook as appraisers. 

Brown, Sarah, estate of. Lyman C. Brown, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Brown, Sarah C, estate of. George M. Viall, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate i^ Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bryant, Napoleon B., estate of. Louise J. Bryant, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Burleigh, Miua E., estate of. Will C. Burleigh, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Call, Alvin F., estate of. Harriet A. Call, executrix. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate. License granted. 

Cameron, Catherine, estate of. Hugh C. Cameron, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Carleton, Joseph P., estate of. Joseph F. Carleton, adminis- 
trator. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Cate, George N., estate of. Benjamin F. Greely et al., execu- 
tors. Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. 
Assented to extension. 

Chamberlain, Frances J., estate of. Lydia A. Brewster et al., 
executrices. Petition for license to receive personal estate 
in Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be 
heard. 



124 ATTORNEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jaiu 

Chamberlain, Frances J., estate of. Lydia A. Brewster et alj 
executrices. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Claffey, John, estate of. Thomas Claffey, administrator. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Coleman, James H., estate of. Martha A. Coleman, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Collins, Irene, estate of. Frank S. Collins, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Corcoran, William J., estate of. Michael J. Jordan et al.^ trus- 
tees. Petition for reappraisal. Assented to the appointment 
of Alfred M. Graham as appraiser. 

Creighton, Susan E. W., estate of. Timothy M. Joy, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in MassaQhu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment 
of tax. 

Cutts, Susan J., estate of. William H. C. FoUansby, administra- 
tor. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massa- 
chusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Dana, Ruth Charlotte, estate of. Richard H. Dana, petitioner. 
Petition for reappraisal. Assented to the appointment of 
Edward W. Grew as appraiser. 

Deming, Mary L., estate of. William H. Sisson, executor. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Driscoll, Sarah J., estate of. Margaret S. Driscoll, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. Attorney-Gen- 
eral waived right to be heard. 

Duncan, John, estate of. Christy H. Duncan, administratrix. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate. License granted. 

Dunn, Mary, estate of. Richard O'Brien, executor. Petition for 
license to receive personal estate. Attorney-General waived 
right to be heard. 

Eckley, Julia A., estate of. Thomas P. Peckham, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Eddy, Annie Goddard, estate of. Charles H. Fiske, executor. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Eldridge, Eliza, estate of. George H. Buckingham, administra- 
tor. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massa- 
chusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 125 

Faulkner, Anne S., estate of. Philip Dexter, administrator. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented 
to extension. 

Feder, Samuel, estate of. Matilda Feder, executrix. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Flint, Caroline H., estate of. James M. Flint, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Pending. 

Flint, Henry, estate of. Luthera Flint, executrix. Petition for 
license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Flynn, Ellen, estate of. Margaret Chickering, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Ford, Mary, estate of. Patrick Shea, administrator. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate. Pending. License 
granted. 

Fox, Jacob, estate of. Edward E. Norton et at., executors. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax and 
abatement of interest. Assented to extension claiming 
interest. 

Fox, Jacob, estate of. Edward E. Norton et aL, executors. 
Petition for reappraisal. Wade Keyes appointed appraiser. 

Freeman, Adaline, estate of. Josiah Chase, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Furber, Caroline S., estate of. William H. Small, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment 
of tax. 

Garvey, Bridget, estate of. Cornelius McAuliffe, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Gay, Thomas F., estate of. Edgar L. Carr, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Goddard, Matilda, estate of. Thomas G. Frothingham et at, 
trustees. Petition for reappraisal. Assented to the appoint- 
- ment of Edward S. Grew as appraiser. 

Gove, Maria E., estate of. John W. Hanson, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard upon payment of 
tax. 



126 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jaiu 

Hammer, Thorwald F., estate of. Alfred E. Hammer et aLy 
executors. Petition for license to receive personal estate 
in Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be 
heard. 

Hapgood, Warren, estate of. Hiram Johnson et al., executors. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Harris, Joseph E., estate of. Barnabas Eldridge, administrator. 
Petition for appointment of appraiser to reappraise estate. 
Assented to appointment of F. T. Hammond as appraiser. 

Hayes, Claragusta L. McD., estate of. Samuel D. Felker, ex- 
ecutor. Petition for license to receive personal estate ,in 
Massachusetts. Pending. 

Heminway, Henry J., estate of. Charles H. Heminway, adminis- 
trator. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Hill, Maria B., estate of. Warren Hill, administrator. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Pending. 

Hillman, John, estate of. Patrick Poland, administrator. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Hoehing, Ludwig Ernest, estate of. Philip Stroh et al,, executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 

Hooper, Edward W., estate of. John C. Gray, et al.^ executors. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Howe, Eliza A., estate of. Ella E. Smith, administratrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Howe, Irving A., estate of. D. J. Lord, administrator. Petition 
of Treasurer and Receiver-General for payment of tax on 
certain legacies. Pending. 

Hoyt, Emily, estate of. Joseph T. Bartlett, administrator. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate. Pending. Li- 
cense granted. 

Hutchins', Sterns, estate of. Joshua M. Addeman, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Hyde,. Sarah B., estate of. Andreas Blume et al.^ executors. Pe- 
tition for instructions. Decree. 

Jackson, Lydia B., estate of. Albert W. Robinson, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to bfe heard. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 127 

Jenkins, Caroline D., estate of. Edward M. Frilts, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Johnson, Nanny Wason, estate of. Edward H. Wason, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Pending. 

Jones, Huldah P., estate of. Elmer E. Jones, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Pending. 

Kelsey, Hosmer, estate of. Duane J. Kelsey, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Keniston, Pamelia A., estate of. John Keniston, executor. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

King, Elizabeth H., estate of. Charles S. Collins, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. Pending. 

Kinsley, Nathan B., estate of. Frederick R. Kinsley, adminis- 
trator. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Learned, Catherine M., estate of. Kittie A. Lufkin, administra- 
trix. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Mas- 
sachusetts, Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Lowell, Eliza, estate of. George A. Safford et al., executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Pending. 

Mason, William Powell, estate of. Philip Dexter et al., execu- 
tors. Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. 
Assented to extension. 

Mathes, Susan B., estate of. George S. Frost, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Maxwell, Julia R., estate of. Mary H. Dutton, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 

McDonald, Syrene, estate of. William H. Haskell, executor. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

McLennan, Isabella Stewart, estate of. John Stewart McLennan 
et al., executors. Petition for license to receive personal 
estate in Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to 
be heard. 

Mitchell, Mary A , estate of. Ann Maria Mitchell, executrix- 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 



128 ATTORNEY-GENEEAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Mitchell, Mary Chilton, estate of. Henry Mitchell, executor. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented 
to extension. 

Moody, Andrew, estate of. John K. Lord ei al., trustees. Peti 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Nowell, Franklin F., estate of. Samuel J. Nowell, executor 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Nichols, Stephen F., estate of. Perrin W. Nichols, administrator 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Odell, Elizabeth Ann, estate of. Ella W. Odell et al.^ executors. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Odell, Mary I., estate of. Joseph W. Odell, executor. Petition 
for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Odlin, Augusta F., estate of. John H. Robbins, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions as to payment of tax. Decree. 

Packard, Julia A., estate of. George O. Packard, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. License granted. 

Paige, John C, estate of. J. H. Benton, Jr., executor. Peti- 
tion for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented to 
extension. 

Paine, Algernon H., estate of. Byron C. Waite, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Parsons, Warren, estate of. Frederic D. Parsons, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Patterson, Frank W., estate of. William D. Pennell, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Perkins, Armine, estate of. Moses A. Perkins, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be beard. 

Pickering, Mary P., estate of. Fannie C. Heffinger, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Pratt, Franklin S., estate of. Charles H. Pratt, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Decree. 

Preston, Frances Marion, estate of. Thomas W. Merrill, trustee. 
Petition for instructions. Answer filed claiming tax. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 129 

Purmort, Miner T., estate of. Hannah C. Purmort, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Randlett, Nathan H., estate of. George F. Randlett, administra- 
tor. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massa- 
chusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Richards, Louise S., estate of. Charles 8. Richards, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Pending. 

Richmond, Magdelaine M., estate of. John W. Weed, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Richardson, John C, estate of. Frank D. Appleton, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Robinson, Isaiah S., estate of. Alfred S. Woodward, petitioner. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Rook, George A., estate of. Annie M. McDonald, administra- 
trix. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massa- 
chusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Rotch, Helen Morgan, estate of. Thomas Morgan Rotch, trustee. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Russell, Susan H., estate of. John S. Russell, administrator. 
Petition for license to recei%'e personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Shapleigh, Moses W., estate of. George E. Smith et ah, admin- 
istrators. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Shaw, Sarah Jane, estate of. Martha Ann Sawson, administra- 
trix. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massa- 
chusetts. Pending. 

Smead, Charles B., estate of. Frederick Z. Dickinson, adminis- 
trator. Petitionfor license to receive personal estate. License 
granted. 

Smith, Almeda A., estate of. Marion F. Smith, administratrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Smith, Edward M., estate of. Andrew G. Fearing, Jr., et al.^ 
executors. Petition for reappraisal. Assented to the appoint- 
ment of Charles G. Smith, R. Elmer Townsend and Stanley 
M. Bolster as appraisers. 

Snee, Bridget, estate of. Mary Doyle, executrix. Petition for 
license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. Pending. 



130 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Spalding, Mary Ann, estate of. George E. Clarke, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Spence, Virginia Waldron, estate of. Ross N. Bowers, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. License 
granted. 

Stackpole, John, estate of. Emily T. Stackpole, executrix. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Stevens, E. A., estate of. Georgia A. Stevens, executrix. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Stevens, Ruth T., estate of. Frank Houghton, executor. Petition 
for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented to ex- 
tension. 

Stewart, Harriet M., estate of. Albert A. Stewart, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Thompson, Lafoiest H., estate of. W. W. INIiles, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate. License granted. 

Thompson, Mary G., estate of. John G. Thompson, executor. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Thompson, Susanna, estate of. Charles H. Hersey, administra- 
tor. Petition for license to receive personal estate in ^Rlassa- 
chusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Wheeler, Owen, estate of. Wm. N. Penney et al.^ administra- 
tors. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Mas- 
sachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

White, Henrietta N., estate of. Mary A. P. White, administra- 
trix. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Mas- 
sachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Williams, Charles, estate of. John Ballantyne, Jr., executor. 
Petition for instructions and extension of time for payment 
of tax. Decree. 

Wilson, Maria G., estate of. William R. Wilson, executor. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented 
to extension. 

Wolcott, Roger, estate of. Francis C. Welch et al, executors. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented 
to extension. 

Woodbury, William R., estate of. Sidney H. Woodbury, admin- 
istrator. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 131 

Woods, Henry, estate of. Henry D. Woods et al., executors. 
Petition for extension of time for payment of tax. Pend- 
ing. 

Woodward, Edward G , estate of. George S. Seaverance et al., 
executors. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Worcester County. 

Axtell, Seth J., estate of. William F. Axtell, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bacon, Maria A.,. estate of. Stephen H. Bacon, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Ball, Jane E., estate of. Julia B. Thayer et al., executrices. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Bradford, Alzina, estate of. Fred A. Lewis, administrator. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Braman, Martha A., estate of. Fred L. Aldrich, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Chandler, Lydia J., estate of. Hattie B. Reed, executrix. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Petition allowed. 

Child, William M., estate of, George B. Oswell et al., trustees. 
Petition for license to sell real estate in Massachusetts and 
transfer proceeds. Pending. 

Conway, James, estate of. John Ahern, executor. Petition for 
license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Dana, Jonathan P., estate of. Charles B. Sherman, executor. 
Petitions for reappraisal. Assented to the appointment of 
Samuel C. Willis as appraiser. 

Emerson, George W., estate of. Fanny B. Emerson, adminis- 
tratrix. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Evans, Arthur M., estate of. Helen P. Evans, executrix. Peti- 
tion for reappraisal. Assented to appointment of Charles A. 
Kably, J. Otis Sibley and Henry W. Fowler as appraisers. 

Fisher, George W., estate of. Ella M. Fisher, executrix. Peti- 
tion for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented to 
extension. 



132 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Fitzpatrick, Thomas, estate of. Henry I. Whitney, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

French, Jotham A., estate of. Mary A. French, executrix. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Gilson, Alice L., estate of. Henry S. Gilson, administrator. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Hayward, Henry J., estate of. Hattie M. Hayward, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Kinnicutt, Amy, estate of. Lincoln N. Kinnicut, executor. Pe- 
tition for instructions. Pending. 

Moorhouse, Eunice, estate of. Oscar Schumway, executor. Pe- 
tition for extension of time for payment of tax. Assented to 
extension. 

Pierce, Mary A., estate of. Joseph F. Brennan, executor. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Prince, Ophelia E., estate of. Frank A. Prince, executor. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Putnam, Luke, estate of. Ira F. Harris, administrator. Peti- 
tion for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Rice, Alice M., estate of. Charles M. Rice, executor. Petition 
for instructions. Decree. Appealed by petitioner to Supreme 
Judicial Court. Pending. 

Richards, George R., estate of. Gardner N. Cobb et al., admin- 
istrators. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Richardson, Mary L., estate of. Frank L. Dean, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Richardson, Rebecca E., estate of. George A. Tilden, adminis- 
trator. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Mas- 
sachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Richardson, Sarah, estate of. Union Trust Company, adminis- 
trator. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Mas- 
sachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Runyan, Elizabeth F., estate of. Frank E. Gleason, administra- 
tor. Petition for license to receive personal estate. Petition 
dismissed. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 133 

Scannell, Dennis, estate of. William F. Harding, executor. Pe- 
tition for reappraisal of estate, Attorney-General waived 
right to be heard on return of appraiser. 

Simmons, John A., estate of. Harriet L. Currier, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Stearns, Benjamin F., estate of. Orsemor S. Holden, adminis- 
trator. Petition for license to receive personal estate. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Sylvester, Augusta P., estate of. Ella E. Marden, administra- 
trix. Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massa- 
chusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Tandy, Julia A., estate of. Elisha M. Kempton, executor. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Upham, Joseph B., estate of. AVhited H. Upham, executor. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Upham, Mary A., estate of. John W. Lindsey, executor. Peti- 
tion for leave to file substitute inventory. Petition allowed. 

Way, Ormond B., estate of. James A. Burleigh, administrator. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Webber, Martha L., estate of. Rhoda M. Barrett et al., execu- 
trices. Petition for license to receive personal estate in 
Massachusetts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Wilson, Persis S., estate of. George F. Merriam, executor. Pe- 
tition for license to receive personal estate in Massachusetts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on payment of tax. 

Woods, Francis H., estate of. Caroline E. Woods, executrix. 
Petition for license to receive personal estate in Massachu- 
setts. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 



134 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. rjan. 



PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUSTS. 



Bristol County. 
Leonard, Elizabeth G., estate of. Francis B. Greene, 

Petition for instructions. Attorney-General waived right to 
be heard. 

Essex County, 

Essex Agricultural Society v. Massachusetts General Hospital 
Corporation and the Attorney-General. Petition to sell real 
estate and to apply the doctrine of cy-pres. Service accepted. 
Petition dismissed. Petitioner appealed. Pending. 

Hampden County. 
Elliott, Augustus C, estate of. Charles H. Barrows, adminis- 
trator. Petition for instructions as to method of carrying out 
a charitable bequest. ' Pending. 

Middlesex County. 

Bentley, Samu^el, estate of. Alice Maud Bentley et al.^ petition- 
ers. Petition to Supreme Judicial Court for compromise of 
will. Assented to compromise. 

Donovan, Julia A., estate of. PMward F. Slattery, petitioner. 
Petition for instructions and the appointment of a trustee. 
Pending. 

Foster, John, estate of. Petition for the appointment of a trustee. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Osgood, George C, et al. v. John Z. Rogers et al. Bill in equity 
to determine the disposition of the Rogers Fund. Pending. 

"Walcott, John B., estate of. Milton E. Smith et al., overseers of 
the poor of Natick, trustees. Petition for license to sell cer- 
tain shares of stock. License granted. 

Norfolk County. 
Mann, Jonathan, estate of. John F. Brown et al., trustees. Pe- 
tition for license to sell land. Attorney-General waived right 
to be heard. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 135 

Mann, Jonathan, estate of. John F. Brown et al.^ trustees. Peti- 
tion for leave to sell real estate. Attorney-General waived 
right to be heard. 

Wilder, Charles T. , estate of. Herbert A. AVilder et al. , executors. 
Petition for license to sell real estate. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Suffolk County. 

Billings, Robert C , estate of. Minns et al. v. Billings et al. Bill 
in equity in the Supreme Judicial Court for instructions. Re- 
served for the determination of the full court. Pending. 

Brigham, Peter Bent, estate of. Bill in equity in the Circuit Court 
of the United States to determine the validity of certain be- 
quests for charitable purposes. Pending. 

Bussey, Benjamin, estate of. Bill in equity to authorize trustees 
of a public charitable trust to sell land. Pending. 

Franklin, Benjamin, estate of. Petition of the Attorney-General 
for appointment of trustees under will of Benjamin Franklin. 
Henry L. Higginson, Francis C. Welch, A. Shuman, Chas. 
T. Gallagher, Rev. Chas. W. Duane, Stopford Brooke and 
Alexander K. McLennan appointed trustees. Pending. 

Hancock, Lydia, estate of. William P. Fowler et al.^ executors. 
Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for leave to sell real 
estate devised for charitable purposes. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Liversidge, Thomas, estate of. Horatio N. Glover et al., trustees. 
Petition for leave to sell real estate. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Messerve, Hopley T., estate of. George H. Penderghast, exec- 
utor. Petition regarding a public charitable trust. Pending. 

Murray, Patrick, estate of. Petition for appointment of a master 
to devise a scheme for distribution of trust funds. Pending. 

Packard, Sylvanus, estate of. Trustees of Tufts College, peti- 
tioners. Petition to Supreme Judicial Court for leave to sell 
real estate. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Redding, Mary, estate of. Mabie, administrator, v. Leach, ex- 
ecutor, and Attorney-General. Bill in equity in the Supreme 
Judicial Court concerning a public charitable trust. Pending. 

Smith, James, estate of. Attorney-General v. Abner C. Goodell, 
administrator. An information asking the court to decree a 
scheme for carrying out a public charity. Decree. See 
180 Mass. 538. 

Thompson, Thomas, estate of. Minot, trustee, v. Attorney-Gen- 
eral. Bill in equity regarding a public charitable trust. 
Pending. 



136 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Watterson, Robert C, estate of. Robert W. Lord, trustee. 
Public charitable trust. Petition for leave to distribute a 
portion of the estate. Pending. 

Whitney, Mary T., estate of. George E. Bullard et al., trustees. 
Petition to release interest in real estate. Assented to peti- 
tion. 

Williams, Charles, estate of. John Ballantyne, ^Jr., executor. 

Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for instructions. 

Pending. 

Worcester County. 

Morris, Judah, estate of. American Unitarian Association, peti- 
tioner. Petition for the appointment of a trustee. Assented 
to the appointment of the petitioner. 

The following cases have been brought for alleged land damages 
incurred in the alteration of grade crossings. The Commonwealth, 
being obliged under the statutes to pay at least twenty-five per 
cent, of the expenses incurred in the alteration of all grade cross- 
ings, has in all cases been made a party thereto. 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. City of Boston et ah. Superior 

Court, Suffolk County. Pending. 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. City of Boston et ah. Superior 

Court, Suffolk County. Pending. 
Robert Codman et ah. v. New England Railroad Company et ah. 

Superior Court, Suffolk County. Pending. 
City of Boston v. Boston Wharf Company et ah. Superior Court, 

Suffolk County. Pending. 
Bridget Ballentine et al. v. Town of Gardner. Superior Court, 

Worcester County. Pending. 
George H. Sprague v. Fitchburg. Superior Court, Worcester 

County. Pending. 
Putnam Machine Company v. Fitchburg. Superior Court, Worces- 
ter County. Pending. 
Levi W. Phelps v. Fitchburg Railroad. Superior Court, Middlesex 

County. Pending. 
Susan C. Dickinson et al. v. Fitchburg. Superior Court, Worces- 

cester County. Pending. 
Commonwealth v. Boston Terminal Company. Superior Court, 

Suffolk County. Pending. 
Commonwealth v. Boston Terminal Company. Superior Court, 

Suffolk County. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 137 



Suits conducted by the Attokxey-General ix 
Behalf of State Boards axd Commissions. 



The following cases have been reported to this department by 
State boards and commissions, to be conducted by the Attorney- 
General or under his direction, pursuant to the provisions of St. 
1896, c. 490: — 

1. Metropolitan Park Commission. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages 
alleged to have been sustained by the taking of land by the said 
commission. 

Essex County. 

Allen, Lucy R., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Hay, Allan, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. Pending before 

full court on question of interest. 
Murphy, Michael, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Woodbury, John P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Middlesex County. 
Alther, Henry J., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Alther, Julia, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Ames, Nathaniel P., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Barrett, Charles M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bean, Charlotte, et als. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bench, John, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Bench, Thomas, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Benoit, Eugene C, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Blank, Philip J., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Blank, Philip J, ei al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Bragdon, Louis G., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bridge, Edmund, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Brusendorff, Victor, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 
Burrows, Jane, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Campbell, Catherine B., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Garret, James R., trustee, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



138 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Chandler, Frank E., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Chase, Juliana, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Clark, David O., ei al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Clarke, Nathan D. A., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Clarke, Nathan D. A., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Clarke, Nathan D. A., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Clarke, Nathan D. A., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Connors, Hannah, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Cordingly, William S., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Corey, Henrietta E., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Corey, Henrietta E., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Curtis, Charles P., trustee, under the will of John M. Williams, 
V. Commonwealth. Pending. 

DeCourcey, John J., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Dowd, Martha A., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Dwyer, Michael F.^v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Early, James A., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Freeman, Helen A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Gafifey, Maria H., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Gould, Alice A., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Gould, Alice A., et al. v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Hadley, Benjamin, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Hadley, Benjamin, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Hadley, Benj., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Hadley, Benj., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Hadley, Benj., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Hadley, Benj , v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Hall, Charles A., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Harrington, John A., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Hatch, George S , 'y. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Hatch, George S., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Hefler, Hannah J., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Hemenway, Alfred, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Hodges, Arthur J., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Hoi ton. Amy W., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Holton, Amy W., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Jackson, Walton P. S., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Jones, William H., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Lawrence, Samuel C.^v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Love well, Harriet R., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Lynde, A. Selwyn, administrator, v. Commonwealth. Settled by 
agreement. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 139 

Lyon, Weltba G., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

McSweeney, P^ugene G., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

O'Hara, Daniel, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

O'Riorden, Patrick, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

O'Riorden, Patrick, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Peterson, Jacob J. S., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Pratt, Marland L., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Phinney, Eliza B., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Rawson, AVarren W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Reinhard, Adam, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Rich, Mabel C, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Robertson, John R., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Rogers, Frank R., et al.^ executors of Joseph F. Wilson, v. Com- 
monwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Rogers, Frank R., et al.^ executors of the estate of Joseph F. 
Wilson, V. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Rogers, Frank R., et aL, executors of the estate of Joseph F. 
Wilson, V. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Rogers, Frank R., et al.^ executors of the estate of Joseph F. 
Wilson, V. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Sewall, George F., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Shanahan, Michael, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Smith, G. Edward, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Smith, G. Edward, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Snow, Edward L., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jur3^ 

Stevens, J. Elizabeth, et al.^ heirs of Richard Dexter, v. Common- 
wealth. Settled by agreement. 

Stewart, Martha P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Stewart, Martha P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Stone, Joseph, et ah. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Sullivan, Daniel P., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Symmes, Arthur C, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Viles, Alden E., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Viles, Daniel F., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Warren, Daniel, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Warren Institution for Savings et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled 
by agreement. 

Welch, Albert W., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Wellington, James P2 , v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Wellington, James E., et al.^ trustees, v. Commonwealth. Settled 
by agreement. 



140 ATTOliNEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Wells, Edwin H , ei als. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Welsh, Willard, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Whitney, Alice F., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Whitney, Arthur E., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Whitney, John R., et al., trustees, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Woods, Livonia S., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Norfolk County. 
Bowditch, Ernest W., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Bowley, Anna M., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Cane, Pklmund, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Carter, Charles E., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Chase, Elvira M., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Chick, Winthrop H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Davenport, Charles, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Dean, Henry M., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 
DeLue, George B., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Denny, John W., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Devlin, Mary A., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 
Foster, Alfred, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Fox, Catherine, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Gallagher, Joseph H., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Glover, Horatio N., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Hamblin, Howard M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hamblin, Howard M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Harlow, William H., etals., executors, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hawes, Charles E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hayden, John E. V., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Higgins, Henry M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Howe, Kittie M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Kennedy, John, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 
Klous, Seaman, v. Commonwealth. Referred to auditor. Trial 

before auditor. Pending. 
Klous, Seman, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
MacDonnell, Mary A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Mahoney, Dennis W., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Marron, Philip, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
McGowan, Andrew, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
McGrath, Thomas, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
McKenna, Elizabeth, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 
Meek, William T., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Milton, Inhabitants of , v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 141 

New England Trotting Horse Breeders' Association v. Common- 
wealth. Settled by agreement. 

Pope, Hannah C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Putnam, George, et al., trustees of Henry L. Pierce, v. Common- 
wealth. Settled by agreement. 

Reardon, Ellen, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Reardon, Ellen, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Reutemann, Charles, -v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Russell, James S., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Schultze, Gustav A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Scott, Jane W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Squantum Yacht Club v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Stack, John, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Stack, John, trustee, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Toole, Martin, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Washburn, George F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Willcomb, George, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Willcomb, George, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Plymouth County. 
Foster, Charles H., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Gardner, Mary Elinor, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Graham, Mary E., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Roman, Frank A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Suffolk County. 
Adams, Adoniram J., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Atkins, Florence R., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bamford, Albert J., et als. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Boston & Revere Electric Street Railway Company v. Common- 
wealth. Pending. 
Brown, Albert J., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Clark, Theodore E., v. Commonwealth et al. Pending. 
Conness, John, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Conness, John, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Coughlin, Abbie F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Donnelly, James J., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 
Dresser, Mary A. P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Dresser, William R., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Emerson, Catherine, trustee, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 
Hall, Frances J., et als. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hazlett, John P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Jessop, Ann Elizabeth, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Jones, Alfred E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



142 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Jones, Alfred K., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Jones, Charles A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Jones, Charles A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Jones, Francis A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Jones, Francis A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Jones, George H., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Jones, George H,, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Jones, Robert J., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Jones, Robert J., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Jones, Sarah E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Jones, Sarah E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Lynn & Boston Railroad Company v. Commonwealth. Pend- 
ing. 

Martine, Abba M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Martine, Abba M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Mayers, John H., executor, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Mitchell, Henry, et al. v. Commonwealth. Referred to Welling- 
ton Wells, auditor. Tried before auditor. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Pending. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Pending. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Pending. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Pending. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Pending. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Pending. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Pending. 

Read, Augustus H., e^ al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Ring, Constant Q., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Rogers, Mary E., v. Commoftwealth. Pending. 

Ryan, F. Henrietta, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Singleton, Mary E., v. Commonwealth. Tried by jury. 

Skilton, Elizabeth A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Skilton, Elizabeth A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Smith, Emma, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Somerby, Julianna H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Streeter, Susan S. T., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 143 

Thayer, Joseph Henry, et ah v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wadsworth, P. Briggs, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wadsworth, Susan, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Warner, Joseph B., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Watson, Sarah B., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
White, Daniel L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
White, Daniel L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wyman, George W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Young, Elizabeth E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Young, Elizabeth E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

2. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 
Petitions to the Supreme Judicial and Superior Courts for 
assessment of damages alleged to have been sustained by the 
taking of land, and rights and easements in land, by said Board. 

Middlesex County. 
Ballon, Chloe Ann, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Boston & Albany Railroad Company v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bowditch, Elizabeth F., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Buck, William H., -y. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Cameron, Katherine S., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Commonwealth v. Boston & Albany Railroad Company. Pending. 
Dunn, Johanna T., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Framingham Water Company v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Maiden v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Maiden, Medford and Melrose v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Medford v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Melrose v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Nashua River Paper Company et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending.. 
Perkins, Robert F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Shaw, Francis, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Stone, Joseph, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Vose, Abner S., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wadsworth, Ida E., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreements 

Norfolk County. 
Burrell, Emma A., v. Commonwealth. Discontinued. 
Flint, Charles L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Havahan, Francis J., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hodgkinson, Charles C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hunt, Henry W., et al. v. Commonwe Trial by jury. Pend- 

ing before full court on exceptions. 
Lowell, Charles, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



144 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Scheffreen, Jacob, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Tyndale, Theodore H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Yeale, Peter P., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Suffolk County. 

Boston V. Commonwealth. Trial before auditor. Pending. 

Boston V. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Boston V. Kingman et al. Settled by agreement. 

Boston & Albany Railroad Company v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Evangelical Lutheran Church for Works of Mercy v. Common- 
wealtli. Pending. 

Finneran, William, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Harvard College v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Noon, Margaret, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Richards, Annette et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Sheehan, John, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Stone, Jasper W., et al., administrators, v. Commonwealth. 
Pending. 

Stone, Joseph, et als. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Worcester County. 
Allen, George S., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 
Allen, Olive E., v. Commonwealth. Dismissed. 
American Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Commonwealth. 

Pending. 
American Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Commonwealth. 

Pending. 
Arkwell, Edward, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 
Ayer, Eliza A., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 

Pending. 
Bacon, Emory A., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 

Pending. 
Bacon, Marinna, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 

Pending. 
Ballon, Chloe Ann, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Ballou, Chloe A., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Barry, Ellen A., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 

Pending. 
Bathrick, Dorothy P., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 
Bemis, Elevyn H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Berlin, Andrew, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 

Pending. 
Bigelow Carpet Company v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 145 

Bigelow Carpet Company v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Bigelow Carpet Company v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Bigelow Carpet Company v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Bigelow, Joseph M., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Settled by agreement. 

Bigelow, Joseph M., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Settled by agreement. 

Bond, Louis, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Bosworth, Effle M., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commission- 
ers. Trial before commissioners. 

Bourdon, Joseph, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Boyd, Andrew, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Boynton, Abigail, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Boynton, Henry A., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Blunt, Isabelle M., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commission- 
ers. 

Bradley, Patrick, v. Commonwealth. Referred to Ernest H. 
Vaughan, George A. Sanderson and Charles E. Ware, com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Brigham, Eunice F., et al. v. Commonwealth. Referred to com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Bruce, William M., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Buck, Delia J., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Buck, William H., v. Commonwealth. Referred to auditor. 
Pending. 

Buck, William H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Burgess, Thomas H., v. Commonwealth. Referred to Ernest H. 
Vaughan, George A. Sanderson and Charles E. Ware, com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Burke, Nellie E., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Carville, Clarence, v. Commonwealth. Referred to Ernest H. 
Vaughan, George A. Sanderson and Charles E. Ware, com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Cather, William J., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Chandler, Charles H.,et al. v. Commonwealth. Trial before com- 
missioners. 

Chapman et al. v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Chapman, Sarah, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 



146 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

ChapmaD, Walter E., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Chapman, Walter E., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Chase, Frances H., administratrix, v. Commonwealth. Referred 
to commissioners. Pending. 

Cleary, Lawrence G , v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Coolidge, William F., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Cooper, Joseph, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Cotting, Chas. U., et als. v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Counter, Fred, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Cowee, Edward A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Cowee, Edward A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Cowee, Edward A., v. Metropolitan Water Board and Common- 
wealth. Pending. 

Cowee, Edward A., v. Metropolitan Water Board and Common- 
wealth. Pending. 

Cowee, Edward A., v. Metropolitan Water Board and Common- 
wealth. Pending. 

Cowee, Edward A., v. Metropolitan Water Board and Common- 
wealth. Pending. 

Cowee, Edward A , v. Metropolitan Water Board and Common- 
wealth. Pending. 

Cowee, Hattie L., v. Metropolitan Water Board and Common- 
wealth. Pending. 

Crooker, Ansel F., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Cunningham, Robert, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

Cunliffe, John, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Cutting, Mary F., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Davis, John K., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Dee, John, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Dolan, Catherine, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Dorr, James, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Dorr, James, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 147 

Dorr, James, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Dusoe, Charles, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Earle, William A., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commission- 
ers. Reserved for full court. Case recommitted to com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Fahey, Timothy, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Fairbanks, Edwin C, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. Reserved for full court. Pending. 

Felt, Charles W., v. Commonwealth. Dismissed. 

Fiske, George A., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Fitch, Andrew L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Flagg, Geo. A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Flagg, Hannah E.,^. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Fletcher, Elizabeth R., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Flint, Eunice J., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Settled by agreement. 

Foster, Amanda, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Fowle, Waldo, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Fred, Esther, v. Commonwealth. Dismissed. 

Frye, John A., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Garfield, Silas, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Gavin, Catherine, v. Commonwealth. Tried before commission- 
ers. Reserved for full court. Rescript. 

George, Nathan D., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commission- 
ers. Pending. 

Goodale, Aaron, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Goodale, Francis W. M., v. Commonwealth. Dismissed. 

Goodale, Mary, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Gorham, Laura N., v. Commonwealth. Dismissed. 

Graichen, Theresa Ernestine, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Harper, Edward A., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Harper, Edward A., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Harris, Charles M., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commission- 
ers. Pending. 

Harris, Melissa, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Haskell, John C, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Hastings et al. v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 



148 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Hastings, Calvin H., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Hastings, George R., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Hastings, Henry L., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Hastings, John C, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commission- 
ers. 

Hastings, John C, et al. v. Commonwealth. Trial before com- 
missioners. 

Hastings, Mary Lizzie, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Hawes, Frederick A., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Settled by agreement. 

Hazard, George, v. Commonwealth. Referred to P. H. Coone3% 
Frederick W. Dallinger and James A. Stiles, commissioners. 
Pending. 

Heinig, Julius, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Holland, Robert, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Holmes, George H., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Holmes, George H., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Houghton, Myron W., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Howe, Israel G., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Huntington, Whitman M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Hyde, George L., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Jefts, Asis S., V. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Johnson, Addison, executor, v. Commonwealth. Referred to 
auditor. Pending. 

Johnson, Carl J., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Johnson, Charles S., v. Commonwealth. Referred to auditor. 
Pending. 

Johnson, Edward S., et al. v. Commonwealth. Trial before com- 
missioners. 

Johnson, Edwin S., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Johnson, William O., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Johnson, William O., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Kendall, George, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Kershaw, James H., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commission- 
ers. Pending. 



1908.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 149 

Ke3'es, George H., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Kirby, Sarah E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Knight, Henry G., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commission- 
ers. Pending. 

Lafrade, Peter, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Lafyette, Louisa, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Lawrence, Emma, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Lawrence, George D., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Lawrence, Lucretia, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Laythe, Sarah A., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Laythe, Sarah A., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Leonard, Bridget, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Levi, Sarah, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Lienhardt, Andrew, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Longley, George H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Lord, Joseph M., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Lord, Joseph M., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Lovell, Alfred, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Lovell, Angeline E,, et al. v. Commonwealth. Referred to com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Lovell, David B., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Lovell, Portland, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Lowe, Horace H., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Lozeau, Delia, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Luce, Mehitable, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Lucius, Jeremiah, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Lundren, Per Arvid, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Luurtsema, Gurt, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Luurtsema, Joaptje, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Lynch, John, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Lynch, Thomas, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Lynch, Thomas, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 



150 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Mack, Cornelius, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Maekesey, Thomas, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Mahan, James, v. Commonwealth. Referred to Ernest H. 
Vaughan, George A. Sanderson and Charles E. Ware, com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Mallett, Delina, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Mallett, Delina, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

March, Harry E., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Dismissed. 

Marsh, James B.,^. Commonwealth. Pending. 

McAndrew, Hannah, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

McAndrew, Hannah, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

McGuinness, Catherine, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

McNamara, Hannah W., v. Commonwealth. Ernest H. Vaughan, 
George A. Sanderson and Charles E. Ware, commissioners. 
Pending. 

McNamara, Austin D., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

McNamara, Ellen, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

McNamara, Thomas, et al. v. Commonwealth. Referred to com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Merrill, Elizabeth A., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Moore, Nellie F., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Moran, James, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Moran, Patrick T., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Morse, Amanda, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Mulcahy, Catharine, administratrix, v. Commonwealth. Trial 
before commissioners. 

Nashua River Paper Company et al. v. Commonwealth. Referred 
to commissioners. Pending. 

Nault, David, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Newton, George B., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Newton, Silas, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Nichols, Charles E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Nichols, Luke H., et al. v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners; Pending. 

O'Brien, John F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT— No. 12. 151 

Olcott, John H., V. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

O'Malley, Michael, n. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. Reserved 
for full court. Rescript. 

Ovenden, William C, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

O'Toole, Patrick, v. Commonwealth. Referred to Ernest H. 
Vaughan, George A. Sanderson and Charles E. Ware, com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Phelps, Sarah A., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Philbin, Mary, v. Commonwealth. Referred to Ernest H. 
Vaughan, George A. Sanderson and Charles E. Ware, com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Philbin, Tobias, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Pierce, Caroline, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Pierce, Henry, v. Com-monwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Potter, Jeremiah, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Prescott, John B. F., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Prescott, Martha E., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Redding, George L., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Reed, Alice N., ?;. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Reed, Charles H., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Reed, Charles H., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Reed, Elizabeth M., et al., executors, v. Commonwealth. Re- 
ferred to commissioners. Pending. 

Reed, George D., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Rice, Almira F., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Rice. Mary C, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Ryan, Michael H., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commission- 
ers. 

Ryan, Michael S., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commission- 
ers. 

Sargent, Margaret E,, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Sawin, Charles B., v. Commonwealth. Referred to an auditor. 
Pending. 

Sawyer, Henry O., et al. v. Commonwealth. Trial before com- 
missioners. Reserved for full court. Rescript. 

Sawyer, Ivers H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



152 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Sawyer, Ivers H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Scanlon, Mary, et al. v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Sears, Joshua M., v. Commonwealth. Referred to auditor. 
Pending. 

Sene, Eclid, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Sheldon, Augustus V., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Shepard, John, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Short, Harriett, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Sirabian, Kayazan, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commission- 
ers. Pending. 

Smith, Alice M., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Smith, Artemus C, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Snow, Antoine, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commissioners. 

Snow Brothers v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Staples, William H., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Staples, William H., et al. v. Commonwealth. Trial before com- 
missioners. 

Storms, William E., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Stott, James R., v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Tatro, George, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Thomas, A. Mason, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commission- 
ers. Pending. 

Tobin, Mary A., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Tonry, Margaret F., v. Commonwealth. Referred to Ernest H. 
Yaughan, George A. Sanderson and Charles E. Ware, com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Toombs, Joseph E., v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

Toomey, John, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Toomey, John, v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Warfield, Samuel R., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 153 

Warfield, Samuel R., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Warner, Mary J., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Warner, Mary J., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

West Boylston v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

West Boylston v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

West Boylston Manufacturing Company v. Metropolitan Water 
Board. Pending. 

Whitaker, C. Wayland, v. Commonwealth. Trial before commis- 
sioners. 

White, Lucy, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Whiting, Alfred N., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Wilder, Francis A., et al. v. Commonwealth. Referred to com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Wilder, Francis A., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Wilder, Harriet, v. Commonwealth. Trial by jury. 

Wilson, James, v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

Wood, Ashley H., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

Wood, Lucy A., v. Commonwealth. Referred to Ernest H. 
Vaughan, George A. Sanderson and Charles E. Ware, com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Wood, Willie B., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

York, Eda F., v. Commonwealth. Settled by agreement. 

York, Eda F., v. Commonwealth. Referred to commissioners. 
Pending. 

3. Massachusetts Highway Commission. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for a jury to assess damages 
alleged to have been sustained by the taking of land, or injury to 
land, by said commission. Under agreement with the Common- 
wealth these cases are defended by the various towns in which the 
land is situated. 

Barnstable County. 
Crowell, Thomas H., v. Commonwealth. 

Essex County. 
Dane, Sarah E., et al. v. Commonwealth. 



154 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Franklin County. 
Hale, Francis J., v. Commonwealth. 
Wait, Myra J., v. Commonwealth. 

Middlesex County. 
Donovan, James H., v. Commonwealth. 
Griffin, John, et al. v. Commonwealth. 
Hudson Co-operative Bank v. Commonwealth. 
Thimineur, Joseph, v. Commonwealth. 

Worcester County. 
Gould, Charlotte E., v. Commonwealth. 
Loring, John S., -v. Commonwealth. 
Warren, Alice E. M., v. Commonwealth. 

4. Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages caused 
by the taking of land by said commissioners. 

Suffolk County. 
Bent, William H., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Clark, Marcus C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
East Boston Company v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Jeffries, Anna L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Lamb, George, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Lamb, George, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Roxbury, Central Wharf v. Commonwealth. Settled by agree- 
ment. 

5. Miscellaneous Cases from Above Commissions. 
Essex County. 
Hagerty, Hannah, administratrix of estate of Thomas Meehan, 
V. Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Lynn & Boston Rail- 
road et al. Action of tort to recover damages for personal 
injuries received on State highway. Pending. 

Middlesex County. 

Bradford, Edward S., Treasurer and Receiver-General, v. Charles 
A. Hall. Action of contract to collect betterments assessed 
by Metropolitan Park Commissioners. Pending. 

Eradford, Edward S., Treasurer and Receiver-General, v. Mary 
A. Dowd. An action of contract to collect betterments as- 
sessed by Metropolitan Park Commissioners. Pending. 



1908.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 155 

Gilraore, Jerome, administrator of estate of Alexander Gilmore, 
V. Dennis Sbannahan et al. and Metropolitan Water and 
Sewerage Board, trustees. Action of tort to recover dam- 
ages for personal injuries. Pending. 

Murray, John B., -u. Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Lynn 
& Boston Railroad et al. Action of tort to recover damages 
for personal injuries received on State highway. Pending. 

Newton Rubber Works v. Metropolitan Park Commission. Trial 
before a master. Reserved for full court. Rescript. 

Pike, Sophia F., v. Metropolitan Park Commissioners. Action of 
tort to recover for personal injuries to plaintiff. Pending. 

Suffolk County. 

Bent, William H., et al. v. Henry W. Swift et al. Action of tort 
growing out of taking by Harbor and Land Commissioners 
of land and flats in South Bay. Pending. 

Boston V. Kingman et al. Action of tort. Dismissed. 

Chadwick, Everett D., v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. 
Bill in equity to determine party entitled to award by Metro- 
politan Park Commission for land taken in Milton. Pending. 

Crandall, H. Burr, v. Charles Price (superintendent) . Action of 
tort for conversion. Pending. 

Conness, John, v. Commonwealth. Petition for a writ of certi- 
orari to quash betterments assessed by Metropolitan Park 
Commissioners. Pending. 

Doherty, James, v. PMward W. Everson et al. and Metropolitan 
Water and Sewerage Board. Action of tort. Damages caused 
by blasting. Pending. 

Doherty, James, v. Commonwealth. Petition for assessment of 
damages caused by blasting for metropolitan sewer. Pending. 

Connolly, Mary E.. v. Charles G. Craib. Action of tort to 
recover damages for personal injuries. Pending. 

Doherty, Mary, v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board et al. 
Action of tort. Damage caused by use of impure water 
furnished by defendant. Pending. 

Doherty, Mary E., v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board 
et al. Action of tort. Damage caused by use of impure 
water furnished by the defendant. Pending. 

Dings, Emma, v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. Ac- 
tion of tort. Damage caused by impure water furnished by 
the defendant. Pending. 

Dings, Martin, v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. Ac- 
tion of tort. Damages caused by impure water furnished by 
defendant. Pending. 



156 ATTORNP^Y-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Duffy, Bernard, v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 
Action of tort. Damages caused by impure water furnished 
by defendant. Pending. 

Duffy, Bernard, administrator of the estate of Joanna Duffy, v. 
Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. Action of tort. 
Damage caused by impure water furnished by defendant. 
Pending. 

Duffy, Edward, v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 
Action of tort. Damage caused by impure water furnished 
by defendant. Pending. 

Duffy, Joseph H., v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 
Action of tort. Damage caused by impure water furnished 
by defendant. Pending. 

Duffy, Mary R., v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 
Action of tort. Damage caused by impure water furnished 
by the defendant. Pending. 

Duffy, Maurice, v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 
Action of tort. Damage caused by impure water furnished 
by the defendant. Pending. 

Duffy, William J., v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 
Action of tort. Damage caused by impure water furnished 
by the defendant. Pending. 

Dunican, Anna L., v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 
Action of tort. Damages caused by impure water furnished 
by defendant. Pending. 

General Electric Company v. National Contracting Company and 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. Action of contract 
growing out of the construction of high-level sewer in West 
Roxbury. Dismissed as to Commonwealth. 

Hanscom, Hervey A., et al., Cambridge v. Action of tort grow- 
ing out of accident caused by laying water pipes by IMetro- 
politan Water Board in Cambridge. Pending. 

Hanscom, Hervey A., et al., Commonwealth v. Action of con- 
tract growing out of accident caused by laying water pipes by 
Metropolitan Water Board in Cambridge. Pending. 

Haveland, J. B., V. Commonwealth. Action of contract. Settled 
by agreement. 

Jones, George H., et al. v. Metropolitan Park Commissioners. 
Petition for a writ of certiorari on account of assessment of 
betterments on land in Revere. Pending before Supreme 
Judicial Court. Rescript — writ to issue. 

Jones, J. Edwin, et al. v. Commonwealth. Petition for assess- 
ment of damages caused by breach of contract to construct 
high-level sewer in West Roxbury. Pending. ^ 



1903.] PUBLIC^ DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 157 

Jones, J. Edwin, et al. v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage 
Board. Action of tort. Damages caused by breach of con- 
tract to construct high-level sewer in West Roxbury. Pending. 
Jones, Richard, v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board et al. 
Action of tort. Damage caused by use of impure water 
furnished by defendants. Pending. 
Kennedy, Joseph C, et al. v. Commonwealth et al. Bill in equity 
to recover for materials furnished contractor for construction 
of pumping station at Spot Pond. Reserved for full court. 
Dismissed. 
Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board v. Leroy E. Coolidge. 
Bill in equity to prevent pollution of waters of Whitehall 
Pond in Hopkinton. Pending. 
Mason, Jacob M., v. Commonwealth. Action of tort. Personal 
injury growing out of construction of Metropolitan Water 
Works. Pending. 
National Contracting Company v. Commonwealth of Massachu- 
setts. Petition for assessment of damages caused by breach 
of contract to construct high-level sewer in West Roxbury. 
Reserved for determination of full court on demurrer. Pend- 
ing. 
Newton, Francis D., et al. v. Henry H. Sprague et als. Petition 
in the nature of an action of tort to recover damages caused 
by the alleged filling up of a well belonging to plaintiffs. 
Pending. 
Niland, Michael, v. Commonwealth. Petition for assessment of 
damages caused by blasting for metropolitan sewer. Pending. 
Niland, Michael, v. Edward W. Everson et al. and Metropolitan 
Water and Sewerage Board. Action of tort. Damages 
caused by blasting. Pending. 
Normile, Francis, v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. Pe- 
tition for a jury to assess damages caused by construction of 
sewer in Roxbury. Pending. 
Rohan, Mary, v. Commonwealth. Petition in the nature of an 
action of tort for personal injuries alleged to have been sus- 
tained in the construction of a section of the metropolitan 
sewer. Pending. 
Sheehan, John, v. Commonwealth. Breach of contract growing 
out of construction of sewer in East Boston. Settled by 
agreement. 
Southborough, Commonwealth v. Action of contract. Pending. 
Sprague, Henry H., et al. v. James Dorr. Bill in equity for an 
injunction to prevent the pollution of Quinapoxet River. 
Pending. 



158 ATT0RXEY-GENP:RALS report. [Jan. 

Urquhart, Carrie S., v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board 
et al. Action of tort. Damage caused by impure water fur- 
nished by the defendant. Pending. 

Urquhart, Edwin N., v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board 
et al. Action of tort. Damage caused by use of impure 
water furnished by defendant. Pending. 

Urquhart, N. Jefferson, v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage 
Board et al. Action of tort. Damage caused by impure 
water furnished by the defendant. Pending. 

Worcester County. 

Fitch, Andrew L., v. Commonwealth. Action of tort to recover 
for damage to land and water rights in West Boylston caused 
by the takings of the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage 
Board. Pending. 

Flagg, John N., v. Edward S. Bradford, Treasurer. Action of 
contract growing out of the taking by the Metropolitan Water 
Board of the plaintiff's land. Reserved for the full court. 
Petition dismissed. 

6. Cases arising under St. 1899, c. 457, " An Act to limit the 
Height of Buildings in the Vicinity of the State House." 
Abbott, Edwin H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Beebe, E. Pierson, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Binney, Amos, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Binney, Arthur, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Binney, Henry P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Boyden, Edward C, et al., trustees, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Brinton, Ferree, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Cabot, Susan B., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Croft, Arthur, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Earl, Maria B., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Ebann, Leontine D., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Dexter, Elsie, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Dexter, Elsie, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Dexter, Philip, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Dexter, Philip, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Dexter, Philip, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Endicott, William, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Forbes, J. Malcom, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Frye, Emily J., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Goddard, George A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Gray, Francis C, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Heard, J. Theodore, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 159 

Hollingsworlh, Polly R., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Holmes, Mary J., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Lewis, Elizabeth, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Lodge, Henry Cabot, administrator, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Loring, Anna P., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Paine, Robert Treat, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Paine, Robert Treat, et als. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Park, Theodore W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Parker, Charles H., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Parkman, George F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Peabody, Francis, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Perry, Emily C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Prince, Gordan, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Prince, Lucy Maria, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Read, Elise H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Read, John, et al., trustees and executors, v. Commonwealth. 

Pending. 
Ritchie, Rosa G., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Robinson, Edith V., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Ruggles, Henry S., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Swift, Ethel Dalton, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Warren, Fiske, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Way, Charles G., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Winslow, Edward M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

7. State Board of Charity. 
(a) Actions of contract pending in the Superior Court to re- 
cover charges for the support of insane paupers in State insane 
hospitals, under the provisions of R. L., c. 87. 

Middlesex County. 
Shaw, Treasurer, v. Esau Cooper. 

Svffolk County. 
Bradford, Treasurer, v. Alice H. Knight. 
Bradford, Treasurer, v. Frederick H. Osgood. 
Bradford, Treasurer, v. D. H. Shillaber. 
Bradford, Treasurer, v. Waltham. 
Bradford, Treasurer, v. Arthur M. Wolfe. 
Marden, Treasurer, v. Peabod}^ 
Marden, Treasurer, v. Waltham. 

Phillips, Treasurer, v. Boston. Trial by jury. Verdict for Com- 
monwealth. 
Phillips, Treasurer, v. Cambridge. 



160 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Phillips, Treasurer, v. Reading. 
Phillips, Treasurer, v. Stow. 
Phillips, Treasurer, v, Worcester. 

{b) Bastardy complaints brought under R. L., c. 82. 

Middlesex County. 
Egnor, Belle, v. Arthur Wyman. Trial by jury. Verdict for 
defendant. 

Suffolk County. 

Johnson, Julia R., v. Henry Williams. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMEKT — No. 1.'. 161 



MISCELLAIS^EOUS CASES. 



Adams Gas Light Company. Violation of statutes, in that gas 
of company contained sulphuretted hydrogen. Referred to 
city solicitor of Adams. 

Ahem, Maurice, v. Newton & Boston Street Railway Company. 
Bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States to 
restrain the defendant from complying with the provisions of 
St. 1900, c. 197, relative to the transportation of scholars in 
the public schools by street railway companies. Pending. 

Allen, E. Hunt, Jr., et al. v. Commonwealth. Petition to secure 
payment of money from treasury claimed under assignment. 
Petition dismissed by agreement. 

Amesbury & Salisbury Gas Light Company. Penalty for exist- 
ence of sulphuretted hydrogen in its gas. Pending. 

American Bell Telephone Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 
for refund of corporation tax for 1901 paid by said company. 
Judgment for plaintiff entered b}^ agreement. 

American Unitarian Association v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
Superior Court for a jury to assess damages sustained to 
property on Bowdoin Street, caused by lowering of grade. 
Pending. 

Andrews, George F. Claim for board of David W. Andrews at 
Westborough Insane Hospital. Pending. 

Attorney-General, petitioner. Petition for registration of the 
title to Bird Island Shoal in Boston harbor. Pending. 

Ayer Light, Heat and Power Company. Failure to file with the 
Gas Light Commissioners the return required by St. 1886, 
c. 346, § 2, as extended by St. 1887, c. 382, § 2. Pending. 

Baker, Joshua E., petitioner. Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
Writ issued and petitioner discharged from custody. 

Barker, Annie E. Claim for tide water displaced in Boston har- 
bor. Pending. 

Bay State Beneficiary Association, Attorney-General ex rel. In- 
surance Commissioner v. Petition to the Supreme Judicial 
Court of Suffolk Count}^ for an injunction and appointment 
of a receiver. Injunction issued, and Henry C. Hyde, Esq., 
and Henry C. Bliss, Esq., both of West Springfield, were 
appointed temporary receivers. Pending. 



162 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [elan. 

Bay State Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Insurance Commis- 
sioner V. Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk 
County for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. 
Injunction issued, and Herbert Parker, Esq., appointed re- 
ceiver. Final decree. 

Berkshire Health and Accident Association, Attorney-General ex 
rel. Insurance Commissioner v. Petition for an injunction 
and the appointment of a receiver. Injunction issued, and 
Alpheus Sanford, Esq., of Boston, appointed receiver. Pend- 
ing. 

Billerica Electric Company. Claim for corporation tax for 1901. 
Tax abated. 

Boston V. Commonwealth. Sewer assessment on Rutherford 
Avenue, Charlestown. Pending. 

Boston, city of. Claim for tidewater displaced in Fort Point 
channel. Pending. 

Boston, Commonwealth v. Petition for assessment of damages to 
State Prison buildings, caused by the alteration of grade 
crossings in Charlestown. Pending. 

Boston V. James H. Doyle et al., Board of Aldermen. Bill in 
equity to restrain said board from expending a portion of the 
Benjamin Franklin fund. Pending. 

Boston & Lynn Steamboat Express Company, Attorney-General 
V. Petition for dissolution of said company. 

Boston & Northern Street Railway Company, Attorney-General ex 
rel. V. Petition for writ of quo warranto. Use of name 
denied. 

Boston Yacht Club, petitioner. Petition to the Court of Land 
Registration to register title to land in Marblehead. Pending. 

Bowler Brothers Benevolent Association, Incorporated. For 
failure to file annual report with Insurance Commissioner. 
Report filed. 

Bragg, Henry W., et al. v. Commonwealth. Petition to Superior 
Court for Suffolk County for allowance of claim of auditors 
for examination into affairs of Massachusetts Benefit Life 
Association. Pending. 

Bridges, Benjamin F. (Warden, Massachusetts State Prison), v. 
Edward D. Bean. Claim for goods furnished to the defend- 
ant. Pending. 

Brookfield Savings Bank, Savings Bank Commissioners v. Peti- 
tion to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for an 
injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunction 
issued, and George W. Johnson appointed receiver. Receiver 
discharged. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 163 

Brothership of Birsen Association, Attorney-General ex rel. v. 

Petition for an injunction and a receiver. Injunction issued, 

and David A. Ellis appointed receiver. Final decree. 
Brush Chemical Company. Failure to file return required by St. 

1891, c. 341. Pending. 
Cambridge Gas Light Company. Penalty under R. L., c. 58, § 14. 

Pending. 
Cape Ann Granite Railroad. Claim for Railroad Commissioners' 

tax. Pending. 
Chelsea Express Despatch Company. Claim for fees required for 

filing certificates of condition. Pending. 
Cambridge, Bradford v. Claim for tide water displacement. 

Pending. 
Caswell Shoe Company. Claim for corporation tax for 1901. 

Company has ceased to do business. 
Chaffee, Clara. Claim against the city of Newton for board 

at Worcester Insane Hospital. Pending. 
Chicopee, Water Commissioners of. Claim of violation of civil 

service rules. Referred to District Attorney, Charles L. 

Gardner. Pending. 
Chippewa Copper Mining Company. Claim for mining taxes for 

years 1900 and 1901. Company ceased to do business. 
Clinton Gas Light Company, Attorney-General v. Petition to the 

Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for dissolution 

and the appointment of a receiver under St. 1894, c. 476. 

Pending. 
Columbia Electric Company. Claim for corporation tax, 1901. 

Company in bankruptcy. Claim proved. Pending. 
Colonial Life Association, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition for 

an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Petition 

dismissed on motion of the Attorney-General. 
Chebra Beney Jacob, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Failure to file 

annual report with Insurance Commissioner. Report filed 

and information dismissed. 
Commonwealth Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Insurance Com- 
mission V. Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for 

Suffolk County for an injunction and a receiver under the 

provisions of St. 1894, c. 522, § 7. Injunction issued, and 

William B. Stevens, Esq., appointed receiver. Final decree. 
Cottager Company. Claim for corporation tax for 1901. Tax 

abated. 
Curtis Manufacturing Company, petitioner. Petition to the Court 

of Land Registration to register the title to land on Curtis 

Pond. Pending. 



164 ATTORXEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Damon, George L. Claim for tide water displacement. Pending. 

Dan vers v. Trustees of Danvers Insane Hospital. Petition for 
the appointment of three commissioners under St. 1898, c. 
564, to determine the sum to be paid by the Commonwealth 
for water provided to the Danvers Insane Hospital by the 
town of Danvers. George A. Blauey, Edwin Dresser and 
William Wheeler appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Pending. 

Dexter, William A., et al. v. Commonwealth. Petition to Superior 
Court for a jury to assess damages caused by taking land on 
Mt. Vernon Street, Boston. Pending. 

Dougherty, John O. Claim for board of Margaret O. Dougherty 
at Westborough Insane Asylum. Pending. 

Drucker, Walter A. Claim for Gas and Electric Light Commis- 
sioners' tax. Pending. 

Durkee, Elmer, v. Commonwealth. Action of contract growing 
out of the purchase of goods by the plaintiff from the Danvers 
Insane Hospital. Settled. 

Durgin Grocery and Provision Company. Claim for fee for filing 
certificate of condition. Pending. 

E. W. Noyes Company. Claim for corporation tax for 1901. 
Tax abated. 

Eagle Life Association, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition for 
an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunction 
issued, and Alfred F. Lilley, Esq., appointed receiver. 
Pending. 

Eagle Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Insurance Commissioner 
V. Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County 
for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunc- 
tion issued, and R. D. Weston-Smith, Esq., of Boston, ap- 
pointed receiver. Final decree. 

East Boston Company, petitioner. Petition to Court of Land 
Registration for registration of title to petitioner's land. 
Pendmg. 

East Wareham, Onset Bay & Fort Independence Street Railway 
Company. Claim for Railroad Commissioners' tax. Pend- 
ing. 

Ehlert, Pauline B., e< al. Petition for a writ of habeas corpus to 
release minor children from custody of the State Board of 
Charity. Writ issued. 

Ellis, George H., Attorney-General ex rel. Harbor and Land Com- 
missioners V. Information in the Supreme Judicial Court for 
Middlesex County to protect the waters of a great pond under 
St. 1888, c. 318. Referred to a master. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT— No. 12. 165 

Equitable Accident Insurance Association, Attorney-General v. 
Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for 
an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunction 
issued, and Wade Keyes, Esq., of Boston, appointed receiver. 
Decree discharging receiver. 

F. H. Stevens Company. Failure to file returns required by 
R. L., c. 126. Return filed. 

Fidelity Benefit Association, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition 
for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunc- 
tion issued, and A. E. Denison appointed receiver. Pend- 
ing. 

PMfield Tool Company. Claim for corporation tax, 1901. Tax 
abated. 

Firemen's Fire Insurance Company, Insurance Commissioner v. 
Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for 
an injunction to restrain the defendant from removing its 
books and papers from the Commonwealth, and the appoint- 
ment of a receiver to recover its capital stock distributed with- 
out authority of law. Injunction issued. Defendant recovered 
its capital stock and deposited it with the International Trust 
Company, as trustee. Pending. 

Framingham Savings Bank, Savings Bank Commissioners v. Peti- 
tion to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, under 
St. 1894, c. 317, § 6, for an injunction and the appointment 
of a receiver. Injunction issued, and P. H. Cooney and 
A. V. Harrington appointed receivers. Pending. 

Franklin Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Insurance Commis- 
sioner V. Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk 
County for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. 
Disposed of. 

Fraternal Aid, Order of, Attorney-General ex rel. Insurance Com- 
missioner V. Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for 
Suffolk County for an injunction and the appointment of a 
receiver. Injunction issued, and Winthrop H. Wade, Esq., 
of Boston, appointed receiver. Pending. 

Freligh, E. V. Claim for board of Mary E. Freligh at West- 
borough Insane Hospital. Pending. 

Fuller, William B., petitioner. Petition to the Court of Land 
Registration to register title to land in Magnolia. Decree. 

Globe Investment Company, Savings Bank Commissioners v. 
Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, 
under St. 1888, c. 387, for an injunction and the appointment 
of a receiver. Injunction granted, and Henry A. Wyman 
appointed receiver. Pending. 



166 ATTOENEY-GENEEAL'S EEPOET. [Jan. 

Gloucester Water Supply Company, Commonwealth v. Corpora- 
tion tax for 1895. Pending. 

Goodridge, Clara L., et aL, executors, v. Commonwealth Peti- 
tion for assessment of damages for taking by Commonwealth 
of leasehold estate on Mt. Vernon Street. Pending. 

Greendale Chemical and Electric Lighting Company. Claim 
for Gas and Electric Light Commissioners' tax. Pend- 
ing. 

Greylock Beneficiary Association, Insurance Commissioner v. Pe- 
tition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, 
under St. 1895, c 340, for an injunction and the appointment 
of a receiver. Injunction issued, and A. A. Folsom, of Chel- 
sea, appointed receiver. Final decree. 

Guardian Life Insurance Company, Insurance Commissioner v. 
Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County 
for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunc- 
tion issued, and Frank D. Allen, Esq., appointed receiver. 
Pending. 

Hampshire Savings Bank, Savings Bank Commissioners v. Peti- 
tion to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for an 
injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunction 
issued, and Richard W. Irwin, Esq., and Benjamin E. Cook, 
Esq., appointed receivers. Pending. 

Hanson Creek Lead Mines Company. Claim for mining taxes 
for years 1900, 1901 and 1902. Pending. 

Haverhill Gas Light Company v. Gas and Electric Light Commis- 
sioners et al. Bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the United 
States to restrain the Board from carrying out an order to 
decrease the price of gas in Haverhill. Pending. . 

Herrick, Frederick W., Attorney-General v. Petition in equity to 
gain possession of Snake Island in Chebacco Lake. Pending. 

Holliston Water Company. Claim for corporation tax, 1901. 
Tax abated. 

Holyoke v. Commonwealth. Petition to reimburse the city of 
Holyoke for board of pauper. Pending. 

Hough, Alexander B., Commonwealth v. Claim for board of 
Julia F. Hough at Worcester Insane Hospital. Pending. 

Hudson, town of, v. Edward P. Miles. Petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus. Attorney-General waved right to be heard. 

Humbert First Artillery Mutual Benefit Association, Insurance 
Commissioner v. Failure to make annual report to Insurance 
Commissioner required by St. 1899, c. 442, § 19. Pending. 

Ingliss, William T., et al. v. Commonwealth. Petition to Superior 
Court for a jury to assess damages sustained to property on 
Bowdoin Street, caused by lowering of grade. Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 167 

Independent Order Ahawas Israel, Attorney-General ex rel. v. 
Petition for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. 
Petition dismissed on motion of the Attorney-General. 

Iowa Light, Heat and Power Company. Claim for Gas and Elec- 
tric Light Commissioners' tax. Pending. 

Iowa Light, Heat and Power Company. Failure to file annual 
return with Board of Gas and Electric Light Commissioners. 
Pending. 

Italian Associates of Fall River, Insurance Commissioner v. 
Failure to make annual report to Insurance Commissioner 
required by St. 1899, c 442, § 19. Pending. 

Jablochkoff P^lectric Lighting Company of New England, Com- 
missioner of Corporations v. Petition to the Supreme Judicial 
Court for Suffolk County for dissolution under Pub. Sts., 
c. 106, § 65. Disposed of. 

Kaiser Hat and Cap Company. Claim for corporation tax for 
1897. Company in insolvency. Claim proved. Pending. 

Kennedy, George C, Francis C. Welch, trustee. Claim for tide 
water displacement. Pending. 

Knight, Alice H., Westborough Insane Asylum v. Claim for 
board of insane patient in hospital. Referred to N. N. Jones 
of Newburyport for collection. Pending. 

Knights of Justice, Order of. Insurance Commissioner v. Failure 
to make annual report to Insurance Commissioner required by 
St. 1899, c. 442, § 19. Pending. 

LaMoss, Ervin, v. Commonwealth. Petition to Superior Court 
for a jury to assess damages sustained to property on Bow- 
doin Street, caused by lowering of the grade of Bowdoin 
Street. Pending. 

Lyman, Mary E. Claim for board of Albert C Lyman in West- 
borough Insane Hospital. Pending. 

Livingstone, Murray V. Claim for board of Margie A. Living- 
stone in Westborough Insane Hospital. Pending. 

Lithuanian D. L. K. Algirdo Fraternal Beneficiary Corporation 
of Lowell, Mass., Attorney-General ex rel. v. Failure to file 
annual report with Insurance Commissioner. Report filed 
and information dismissed. 

Logan, John P., v. Charles Rice and the Commonwealth. Action 
of contract. Superior Court for Franklin County. Pending. 

Marshall Engine Company. Claim for corporation tax for 1901. 
Tax abated. 

Masons Fraternal Accident Association of America, Attorney- 
General V. Petition for an injunction and the appointment of 
a receiver. Injunction issued, and Henry C. Bliss, Esq., 
appointed receiver. Pending. 



168 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Massachusetts Benefit Life Association, Attorney-General ex rel. 
Insurance Commissioner v. Petition to the Supreme Judicial 
Court for Suffolk Count}^ for an injunction and the appoint- 
ment of a receiver. Injunction issued, and Arthur Lord, 
Esq., and Alfred S. Woodworth, Esq., both of Boston, ap- 
pointed receivers. Disposed of. 

Massachusetts Masonic Life Association, Attorney-General ex rel. 
Insurance Commissioner v. Petition to the Supreme Judicial 
Court for Suffolk County for an injunction and a receiver 
under St. 1896, c. 515, § 6. Injunction issued, and Jonathan 
Barnes, Esq., of Springfield, appointed receiver. Pending. 

Massachusetts National Life Association, Attorney-General ex 
rel. Insurance Commissioner v. Petition to the Supreme Ju- 
dicial Court for Suffolk County, under St. 1896, c. 515, § 6, 
for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunc- 
tion issued, and George Kress appointed receiver. Final 
decree. 

Maiden Electric Company. Claim for Gas and Electric Light 
Commissioners' tax. Pending. 

Manning, J. C, claim against, for damage to State highway. 
Pending. 

Massachusetts Portuguese Benevolent Society. Failure to file 
annual report with Insurance Commissioner. Report filed. 

McDowell, J. F., claim against, for merchandise furnished by 
State Prison. Pending. 

McQuestin, Fred, Commonwealth v. Action in Superior Court 
for Suffolk County for damages caused by tide water displace- 
ment in Boston harbor. Judgment for defendant. Reserved 
for full court. Rescript. Judgment for defendant. 

McKenna, Maurice J., v. Boston et als. Petition to Superior 
Court for a jury to assess damages caused by the abolition 
of Prison Point grade crossing in Cbarlestown. Pending. 

McQuesten, George, petitioner. Petition to the Court of Land 
Registration to register title to land in Marblehead. Pending. 

Meany, Thomas. Claim for use of Commonwealth's land in 
South Boston. Pending. 

Medway Electric Light and Power Company. Failure to file with 
Gas Light Commissioners the return required by St. 1886, 
c. 348, § 2, as extended by St. 1887, c. 387, § 2. Pending. 

Melrose Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Insurance Commis- 
sioner V. Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk 
County for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. 
Injunction issued, and Alpheus Sanford, Esq., appointed 
receiver. Pending. 



1908.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 169 

Metcalf, Albert, Bradford v. Claim for tide water displacement. 
Pending. 

Middleborough v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 
Company and the Commonwealth. Petition for damages in 
the Superior Court for Plymouth County, growing out of tak- 
ing of land for the purpose of abolishing grade crossings in 
Middleborough. Pending. 

Milford Electric Light and Power Company, Attorney-General v. 
Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for 
dissolution and the appointment of a receiver, under St. 1894, 
c. 476. Pending. 

Mount Hope Ferry Company. Failure to file return with Commis- 
sioner of Corporations. Pending. 

Moody, Con vers. Claim for board of Agusta A. Moody in West- 
borough Insane Hospital. Pending. 

Morgan, Jay H., Lyman School for Boys v. Action of con- 
tract for services of boy placed out by trustees. Pend- 
ing. 

Nantucket board of assessors. Failure to make return of valua- 
tion of corporations assessed. Return filed. 

National Benevolent Union of St. John the Baptist of Haverhill. 
Failure to file annual report with Insurance Commissioner. 
Report filed. 

Netherlands Fire Insurance Company, Attorney-General ex rel. v. 
Violation of St. 1894, c. 522, § 20. Pending. 

New England Benefit Association of Milford, Attorney-General 
ex rel. v^ Petition for an injunction and the appointment of 
a receiver. John W. Worthington, of Boston, appointed 
receiver. Pending. 

New England Mutual Accident Association, petitioners. Petition 
for appointment of receiver. Thomas Weston, Esq., of Bos- 
ton, appointed receiver. Final decree. 

Newburyport & Amesbury Horse Railroad Company. Railroad 
Commissioners' tax, 1899. Pending. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, Bradford v. Claim 
for tide water displacement. Pending. 

Niles Trust Estate. Claim for Gas and Electric Light Commis- 
sioners' tax. Pending. 

Norfolk county commissioners, Attorney-General v. Petition for 
a writ of certiorari. Pending. 

Northeastern Indemnity Association, Attorney-General ex rel. v. 
Petition for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. 
Injunction issued, and F. C. Nash, Esq., appointed receiver. 
Pending. 



170 ATTORXEY-GENEEAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Northern Mutual Relief Association, Attorney-General ex rd. 
Insurance Commissioner v. Petition to the Supreme Judicial 
Court for Suffolk County for an injunction and the appoint- 
ment of a receiver. Injunction granted, and Samuel H. Hud- 
son, of Boston, appointed receiver. Pending. 

Nutting, Charles H., v. Commonwealth. Writ of error in Supreme 
Court of the United States. Argued. Pending. 

O'Reily, Richard P., v. Samuel Dalton et als. Petition to the 
Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for a writ of cer- 
tiorari, claiming want of jurisdiction by the board appointed 
under St. 1893, c. 367, § 65, in the matter of the reorganiza- 
tion of the Eighth Regiment of Infantry, M. V. M. Pending. 

Packard & Evans Company. Claim for corporation tax, 1901. 
Company has ceased to do business. 

Paine, Robert Treat, v. Commonwealth. Petition to Superior 
Court for a jury to assess damages sustained to property on 
Mt. Vernon Street, caused by the lowering of the grade of 
Mt. Vernon Street. Pending. 

Page, Herbert S., et al.^ petitioners. Petition to the Probate 
Court for Suffolk County for the appointment of a guardian for 
Alvin Page, an insane person chargeable to the State. Pending. 

Parker, George. Claim for tide water displacement. Pending 

Peare, George R., v. Socialist Labor Party. Petition to the Mu- 
nicipal Court for Suffolk County for an inquest, under St. 
LS98, c. 548, § 305. Pending. 

Pentila, Andrew, v. Bekkila Helgias and Joseph H. Scott (super- 
intendent of the Massachusetts Reformatory). ^An action of 
tort in the District Court for Middlesex County. Pending. 

Phcenix Rattan Company etal.^ Joseph F. Scott (superintendent) v. 
Action of contract in the Superior Court for Suffolk County. 
Company petitioned into insolvency after entry of writ. 
Edgar N. Hill, Esq., of Boston, and Joseph F. Scott, Esq., of 
Concord, appointed assignees. Claim proved. Pending. 

Pittsfield Electric Street Railway Company. Petition by the Com- 
monwealth for alteration of tracks of said railroad in Dalton. 
Pending. 

Progressive Fraternity, Incorporated, Attorney-General ex rel. v. 
Petition for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. 
Injunction issued, and John W. Worthington appointed re- 
ceiver. Pending. 

Provident Savings Life Assurance Society of New York v. Fred- 
erick L. Cutting, Insurance Commissioner. Petition for a 
writ of mandamus. Hearing on demurrer. Reserved for full 
court. Petition dismissed. See 63 N. E. Rep. 433. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — \(). 12. 171 

Rice, Fannie. Claim for board in Westborough Insane Hospital. 
Pending. 

Richards, Albin M., Treasurer of the Commonwealth v. Action 
of contract for tide water displaced in Mystic River. Pend- 
ing. 

Rogers, James Munroe, petitioner. Petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus to release the petitioner from arrest upon requisition 
from the State of South Carolina. Petition denied. 

Rosa Marie Sugar Company. F'ailure to file papers required of a 
foreign corporation. Pending. 

Sargent, Clara J., v. State Board of Lunacy and Charity. Supe- 
rior Court, Essex County. Appeal on a complaint charging 
neglect of children under St. 1882, c. 181. Pending. 

Security Savings Bank, Board of Savings Bank Commissioners v. 
Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for 
an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunction 
granted. Disposed of. 

Shaw, Joseph E., Fire Marshal, v. Charles F. Nickerson. Peti- 
tion in equity under R. L., c. 32, to show cause why defend- 
ant is not in contempt for refusing to obey a summons of the 
Fire Marshal. Decree filed dismissing petition. 

Sherman, Everett F. Claim for board of Daniel W. Andrews in 
Westborough Insane Hospital. Pending. 

Sibley, Richard C. Claim for tide water displacement. Pending. 

Simonds, Joel H., v. Massachusetts School for Feeble-minded et 
als. Petition for an injunction and assessment of damages 
caused by flowage of land. Disposed of. 

Smith, Maurice, v. Commonwealth. Petition for a writ of error 
to the Superior Court to revise sentence. Pending. 

Society of St. Michael the Archangel. Failure to file annual re- 
port with the Insurance Commissioner. Report filed. 

Societa Militarie Mutuo Soccorso Politica Figli DTtalia, Attorney- 
General ex rel. v. Failure to file annual report with Insur- 
ance Commissioner. Return filed and information dismissed. 

South Shore Masonic Mutual Relief Association of Massachusetts, 
Insurance Commissioner v. Petition to the Supreme Judicial 
Court for Suffolk County, under St. 1895, c 340, for an in- 
junction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunction 
issued, and J. H. Flint appointed receiver. Pending. 

Stone, Joseph, Bradford v. Claim for tide water displacement. 
Pending. 

St. Jean Baptiste Society of North Adams, Attorney-General ex 
rel. V. Failure to file annual report with Insurance Commis- 
sioner. Report filed and information dismissed. 



172 ATTORNEY-GEXEKAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Spencer, H. Warren, claim against, for board of Emma Wales at 
Massachusetts Hospital for Epileptics. Pending. 

Stoughton & Randolph Street Railway Company, Attorney-Gen- 
eral V. Petition in equity to forfeit charter of the company. 
Petition denied. 

Suffolk Mutual Accident Association, Insurance Commissioner v. 
Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for 
an injunction and the appointment of a receiver, under the 
provisions of St. 1896, c. 515, § 6. Injunction issued, and 
George S. Merrill appointed receiver. Final decree. 

Suffolk Masonic Mutual Relief Association, Attorney-General v. 
Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for an 
injunction and the appointment of a receiver, under St. 1899, 
c. 442, § 24. Injunction granted, and Edward T. Pigeon, 
Esq., secretary of the association, appointed receiver. Pend- 
ing. 

Suffolk Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Insurance Commissioner 
V. Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County 
for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver, under 
the provisions of St. 1894, c. 522, § 7. Injunction issued, 
and James C. Davis, Esq., appointed receiver. Pend- 
ing. 

Sun Indemnity Assurance Society, Attorney-General v. Petition 
for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver. Injunc- 
tion issued, and Prescott Keyes, Esq., appointed receiver. 
Pending. 

Supreme Council of United Fellowship, Insurance Commissioner v. 
Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, 
under St. 1895, c. 340, for an injunction and the appointment 
of a receiver. Injunction issued, and Oliver Storer, Esq., of 
Boston, appointed receiver. Pending. 

Tarr, Caroline D. Claim for board of Thomas L. Tarr at Danvers 
Insane Hospital. Pending. 

Taylor, Edgar B., et al. v. Robert Wilson and the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts. Action of contract. Pending. 

Tebo, M. J. Complaint for removing shade trees on State high- 
way. Referred to District Attorney Rockwood Hoar for 
action. 

Titcomb, George H., v. Cape Cod Ship Canal Company, George 
A. Marden, Treasurer, et al. Petition for injunction to re- 
strain the Treasurer of the Commonwealth from the payment 
of money under St. 1883, c. 259, and St. 1891, c. 397. 
Pending. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 173 

Trehy, John W., Attorney-General ex rd. Board of Civil Service 
Commissioners v. Information in the nature of quo warranto 
to try the respondent's title to the oflSce of almoner of the 
city of Chicopee. Reserved for the Supreme Judicial Court. 
Rescript. See 178 Mass. 186. 

United Brotherhood, Independent Order of Worcester, Incorpo- 
rated, Attorney-General ex reL v. Petition for injunction 
and the appointment of a receiver. Pending. 

United Industrials. Petition for failure to file return required by 
St. 1884, c. 330. Pending; 

Ware, Worcester Lunatic Hospital v. Action of contract for the 
board of Hiram L. Wood, a patient in said hospital. Re- 
ferred to the district attorney. Pending. 

Wells, Frank H. Claim for tide water displacement. Pending. 

Westfield Manufacturing Company. Claim for corporation tax 
for 1901. Company in bankruptcy. Claim proved. Pending. 

White, Etta A., petitioner. Petition to the Supreme Judicial 
Court for Suffolk County for release from the Westborough 
Insane Asylum. Remanded to asylum, 

Wildey Casualty Company, Attorney-General ex rel. Insurance 
Commissioner v. Petition to the Supreme Judicial Court for 
Suffolk County for an injunction and the appointment of a 
receiver. Injunction granted, and Archie N. Frost, Esq., of 
Lawrence, appointed receiver. Pending. 

Williams, Henry Bigelow et al. v. Attorney-General. Petition to 
the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of error 
to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Pending. 

Wollaston Land Association. Claim for tide water displacement. 
Pending. 

Wood, L. Porter, petitioner. Petition for writ of habeas corpus 
for release from Massachusetts Hospital for Dipsomaniacs 
and Inebriates. Petition dismissed by request of petitioner. 

World Accident Insurance Company, Attorney-General ex rel. 
Insurance Commissioner v. Petition to the Supreme Judicial 
Court for Suffolk County for an injunction and the appoint- 
ment of a receiver. Injunction issued, and Thomas N. 
Perkins, of Boston, appointed receiver. Final decree. 



174 



ATTORNEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jau. 



COLLECTIONS. 



Collections have been made by this department as follows : — 

Corporation taxes for the year 1901, overdue and referred 
by the Treasurer of the Commonwealth to the Attorney- 
General for collection $72,248 48 

Interest on same at penal rate of six per cent., . . . 940 48 

Costs 817 15 

Miscellaneous, 2,674 11 

Total, . . • $76,680 22 

The following table shows a detailed statement of the same : — 





Collected on 








Account of 








Corporation Tax 


Interest. 


Total. 




for 1901. 






A. B. & E. L. Shaw Company, . 


$773 40 


$13 27 


f786 67 


A. Bmiingame Company, . 


106 78 


64 


107 42 


Abram French Company, 


1,000 00 




1,000 00 


American Citizen Company, 


80 90 


60 


81 50 


American Collection Agency, 


16 18 


16 


16 34 


American Cultivator Publishing 








Company, 


161 80 


4 05 


165 85 


Amesbury & Hampton Street 








Railway Company, . 


809 00 


3 90 


812 90 


Andover Press, Limited, 


68 76 




68 76 


Atlantic Lumber Company, 


1,042 55 


22 59 


1,065 14: 


Austin & Winslow Gallagher 








Express Company, . 


68 76 


1 38 


70 14 


B. L. Bragg Comj^any, . 


404 50 


7 80 


412 30 


Beacon Publishing Company, 


121 35 


2 18 


123 53 


Blair Manufacturing Company, . 


443 97 


2 21 


446 18 


Blue Hill Granite Company, 


223 04 


2 23 


225 27 


Bolles & Wilde Company, . 


509 67 


4 51 


514 18 


Boston Book Company, 


1,213 50 


30 35 


1,243 85 


Boston Co-operative Cloak Man- 








ufacturing Company, 


32 36 


- 


32 36 


Boston Cycle and Sundry Com- 








pany, 


242 70 


7 03 


249 73 


Boston Ice Cream Company, 


161 80 


5 18 


166 98 


Boston Leather Binding Com- 








pany, 


186 07 


2 70 


188 77 


Boston Motor Carriage Company, 


40 45 


1 17 


41 62 



1903.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 



175 



Collected on 

Account of 

Corporation Tax 

for 1901. 



Boston Stitching and Plaiting 
Company, 

Boston Trading and Export Com- 
pany, 

Boston Traveller Company, 

Boston Whiting Company, . 

Brackett's .Market Corporation, 

Brockway Smith Corporation, 

Brookfield Brick Company, . 

Brown & Simonds Company, 

Bush Market Company, 

Campello I^eather Company, 

Carlovv & Putnam Company, 

Charles A. White Company, 

Charles S. Brown Company, 

Chelsea Express Despatch Com 
pany, 

Child Acme Cutter and Press 
Company, .... 

Chilmark China Clay Corpora 
tion, 

Coates Clipper Manufacturing 
Company 

Cobb-Eastman Company, . 

Coburn Stationery Company, 

Codman & Hall Company, . 

Coffin Valve Company, 

Columbia Electric Engineering 
Company, ... 

Consolidated Law Cabinet, . 

Cox & Co., Incorporated, 

Crescent Hat Company, 

Cunningham Lumber Company, 

Daily News Company, 

Dalton-IngersoU Company, . 

Davis & Buxton Stamping Com 
pany, .... 

Dickinson Hard Rubber Com 
pany, 

Dillon Machine Company, . 

Donahoe's Magazine Company, 

Dunne Lyceum Bureau, 

Durgin Grocery and Provision 
Company, 

E. H. Saxton" Company, 

E. P. Sanderson Company, . 

East Douglas Co-operative Asso 
ciation, .... 

East India Extract Company, 

East Wareham, Onset Bay & Point 
Independence Street Railway 
Company, 



$18 


54 


113 


26 


765 31 1 


105 


17 


101 


12 


889 


90 


155 


32 


242 


70 


40 45 1 


60 


27 


80 90 1 


16 


18 


663 38 


20 22 


145 


62 


127 82 


219 


23 


1,031 


47 


14 


23 


647 


20 


254 02 


16 


18 


16 


18 


161 


80 


404 


50 


210 


34 


132 


67 


1,812 


16 


22 65 


55 


01 


121 


35 


141 


57 


16 


18 


64 72 


161 


80 


930 35 


20 


22 


113 


26 


34 62 



$0 98 

2 15 
12 25 



10 73 
2 94 
2 43 

1 05 

2 19 
32 

9 95 



87 

21 

18 
24 

28 
27 
86 



16 
32 
4 84 
6 74 
4 20 
3 98 
9 06 



27 

2 36 

71 



1 97 

1 33 

10 39 



56 



f49 52 

115 41 

777 56 

107 27 

103 04 

900 63 

158 26 

245 13 

40 45 

61 32 

83 09 

16 50 

673 33 

20 22 

146 49 

129 ^3 

223 41 

1,038 71 

14 51 

650 47 
255 88 

16 34 
16 50 
166 64 
411 24 
214 54 
136 65 
1,821 22 

22 65 

55 28 
123 71 
142 28 

16 50 

66 69 
163 13 
940 74 

20 22 
113 82 



34 62 



176 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan . 



Collected on 

Account of 

Corporation Tax 

for 1901. 



Interest. 



Total. 



Eastern Printing and Engraving 

Company, .... 
Empire Shoe Company, 
Essex Automobile and Bicycle 

Company, .... 
Essex Cycle Company, 
Excelsior Laundry Company, 
F. A. Clapp Horn Company, 
Fairhaven Iron Foundry Com 

pany, 

Ferd F. French & Co , Limited, 
Fiske Rubber Company, 
Fitchburg Machine Company, 
Fitchburg Steel Ball Company, 
Frank H. Hall Company, . 
Frank Keene Company, 
Frederick Kendall Company, 
Gardner Gas Fuel and Light Com- 
pany, 

Garratt Ford Company, 
George H. Wood Company, 
George Lawley & Son Corpora- 
tion, 

Gilman Snow Guard Company, 
Graham Shoe Company, 
Greenfield Recorder Company, 
Gregory & Brown Company, 
Grueby-Faience Company, . 
H. B. Stevens Company, 
H. C Fish Machine Works Com- 
pany, 

H. L. Aldrich Company, 
H. M Kinports Company, . 
Hamblin & Russell Manufactur- 
ing Company, . 
Hanover Printing Company, 
Harrison Brothers Company, 
Haverhill & Southern New Hamp- 
shire Street Railway Company, 
Heath Telephone Company, 
Henneman Coffee Roaster Com 

pany,. . . 
Higgins & Gifford Boat Manufac 

turing Company, 
Holly Whip Company. 
Holyoke Steam and Gas Pipe 

Company, .... 
Hoosac Valley Street Railway 

Company, .... 
International Jupiter Steel Com 

pany, 

J. A. Glass Company, . 



f56 


63 


129 44 


16 


18 


16 


18 


388 


32 


161 


80 


48 


54 


647 


20 


129 44 i 


567 


91 


56 


63 


45 30 


517 76 


16 


18 


183 64 


184 46 


194 


16 


794 43 


36 


40 


509 67 1 


36 


40 


323 


60 


242 70 1 


63 


10 


315 51 


40 45 


51 


77 


631 02 


32 


36 


566 


30 


485 40 


145 


13 


1,472 38 


61 


07 


42 


06 


105 


17 


1,768 47 


242 70 


182 02 



fl 69 

65 

10 

47 

1 94 

3 24 



5 29 

2 48 

3 40 
1 13 

1 35 

2 58 
77 

90 

8 09 

3 98 

7 27 

9 85 
72 

3 61 
2 71 
1 57 

6 31 
27 

1 09 

2 94 
61 

2 83 

7 35 
1 91 

7 36 

91 
1 13 

3 15 

8 84 

5 26 

6 19 



S58 32 

130 09 

16 28 

16 65 

390 26 

165 04 

48 54 
652 49 

131 92 
571 31 

57 76 

46 65 

520 34 

16 95 

184 54 
192 54 
198 14 

801 70 

36 40 
519 52 

37 12 
327 21 
245 41 

64 67 

321 82 
40 72 
52 86 

633 96 

32 97 

569 13 

492 75 
147 04 

1,479 74 

61 98 
43 19 

108 32 

1,777 31 

247 96 

188 21 



1903.] 



PUBLIC D0CLT]V1ENT — No. 12. 



177 





Collected on 








Account of 








Corporation Tax 


Interest. 


Total. 




for 1901. 






J. H. Roofers Carriage Company, 


fI2I 35 


|0 73 


$122 08 


J. H. Williams Wall Paper Com- 








pany 


80 90 


49 


81 39 


J. P. & W. 11. Emoud, incorpo- 








rated, 


242 70 


4 85 


247 55 


J. P. Jordan Paper Company, 


707 87 


13 .56 


721 43 


J. S. Turner Company, 


624 54 


3 75 


628 29 


Jackson Patent Shell Roll Cor- 








poration, 


101 93 


6 11 


108 04 


James H Lamb Company, . 


320 76 


12 18 


332 94 


John B. Babcock Company, 


323 60 


2 40 


326 00 


John C. Delaney Moulding Com- 








pany, 


171 50 


3 43 


174 93 


John Dyke Company, . 


97 08 


1 94 


99 02 


John F. Merrill Company, . 


80 90 


- 


80 90 


Journal Newspaper Company, . 


809 00 


15 37 


824 .37 


Kelley Shoe Company, 


145 62 


4 36 


149 98 


Kennedy & Sullivan Manufactur- 








ing Company, .... 


647 20 


3 23 


650 43 


Kimball Brothers Company, 


1,375 30 


33 00 


1,408 30 


L H. Beals & Son Company, 


396 41 


1 98 


398 39 


Lamprey Boiler Furnace Mouth 








Protector Company, . 


202 25 


9 43 


211 68 


Lang & Jacobs Company, . 


101 12 


1 26 


102 38 


Lawrence & Methuen Street Rail- 








way Company 


566 30 


9 73 


576 03 


Leicester Grocery Compan}', 


77 66 


1 55 


79 21 


Library Bulletin Company, . 


80 90 


2 03 


82 93 


Lowe Grain Company, 


129 44 


2 03 


131 47 


Lowell & Boston Street Railway 








Company, 


873 72 


3 73 


877 45 


Lynn Ice Company, 


794 43 


21 35 


815 78 


Lyons Granite Company, 


84 13 


84 


84 97 


j\iarl borough & Westborough 








Street Railway Company, 


1,594 86 


9 56 


1,604 42 


Marlier & Co., Limited, 


485 40 


12 45 


497 85 


Marthas Vineyard Electric Light 








and Power Company, 


43 68 


84 


44 52 


Massachusetts Construction Com- 








pany 


1,504 74 


25 51 


1,530 25 


Massachusetts Investment Com- 








pany, 


161 80 


3 24 


165 04 


]\Iassachusetts Pipe Line Gas 








Company, 


5,630 64 


26 27 


5,656 91 


Massachusetts Telephone and 








Telegraph Company, 


242 70 


3 40 


246 10 


Meadow Brook Farm Company, . 


40 45 


84 


41 29 


Med field & Med way Street Rail- 








way Company, .... 


809 00 


44 49 


853 49 


Medfield Water Company, . 


186 07 


93 


187 00 


Mellish & Byfield, Incorporated, . 


582 48 


11 25 


593 73 


Metropolitan Bolt Company, 


48 54 


24 


48 78 



178 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



Collected on 

Account of 

Corporation Tax 

for 1901. 



Interest. 



Total. 



Middleton Paper Company, . 
Miller Brothers & Co., Corpora 

tion 

Mills & Knight Company, . 
Miscoe Sprino: Water Company, 
Morgan & Ball Company, . 
Nantucket Telephone Company, 
Natiek Gas Light Company, 
New England Bolt and Nut Com- 
pany, 

New England Dredging Com- 
pany 

New England Motor Company, 
New England Publishing Com 

pany 

New England Reed Company, 
Newburyport Herald Company, 
Norfolk Western Street Railway 

Company, .... 
Norris Livery Company, 
Northampton Shoe Company, 
Oliver & Howland Company, 
Nute-Hallett Company, 
Olympic Amusement Company 
Parsons Manufacturing Company, 
Peoples Combination Clothing 

Company, .... 
Peoples Furniture Company, 
Peoples Ice Company of Worces 

ter, 

Pittsfield Journal Company, 
Plymouth Rubber Company, 
Plymouth Stove Foundry Com- 
pany, 

Prentice Brothers Company, 
Press Clipping Bureau, 
Putnam Company, 
Quinsigamond Lake Steamboat 

Company, .... 
Randall Faichney Company, 
Rawson & Morrison Manufactur 

ing Company, . 
Re-New Lamp Company, . 
Revere Roller Coaster Company 
S. A. Freeman Company, 
S. Armstrong Company, 
S. M. Howes Company, 
Samuel Ward Company, 
Sargent Conant & Co., Incorpo 

rated, 

Scandinavian Importing Com 
pany, 



$501 58 

647 20 
485 40 

72 81 
161 80 

40 45 
223 28 

194 16 

1,262 04 
145 62 

424 72 
82 51 
69 57 

364 05 
88 99 

161 80 

304 18 
36 40 
48 54 

129 44 

242 70 
71 19 

186 84 
32 36 

205 48 

103 55 

953 81 

80 90 

323 60 

56 63 
153 71 

1,008 01 

347 87 

108 00 

88 99 

161 80 

679 56 

436 86 

161 80 

485 40 



$17 28 



6 30 
5 66 

55 
3 40 

30 

1 71 

97 

8 41 

2 50 

2 12 
1 54 
1 33 



20 02 
1 76 

97 
3 04 
1 74 
1 16 

78 

5 29 
1 42 



5 03 


16 


1 23 


3 21 


11 29 


81 


6 47 


71 


2 75 


16 80 


3 47 


1 40 


70 


81 


3 17 


2 04 


80 


2 42 



$518 86 

653 50 
491 06 

73 36 
165 20 

40 75 
224 99 

195 13 

1,270 45 
148 12 

426 84 
84 05 

70 90 

384 07 
90 75 

162 77 

307 22 
38 14 
49 70 

130 22 

247 99 
72 61 

191 87 

32 52 

206 71 

106 76 

965 10 

81 71 

330 07 

57 34 
156 46 

1,024 81 
351 34 
109 40 
89 69 
162 61 
682 73 
438 90 

162 60 

487 82 



1903.] 



PUBLIC DOC^UMEXT — No. 12. 



1711 





Collected on 
Account of 








Corporation Tax 


Interest. 


Total. 




for 1901. 






Seth W. Fuller Company, . 


$312 27 


n 56 


$313 83 


Shady Hill Nursery Company, . 


970 80 


19 42 


990 22 


Shedd & Crane Leather Company, 


339 78 


6 80 


346 58 


Silas Pierce & Co., Limited, 


2,022 60 


24 27 


2,046 77 


Spatula Publishing Company, 


161 80 


80 


162 60 


Springfield Coliseum Company, . 


64 72 


39 


65 11 


Springfield Construction Com- 








pany 


61 48 


1 84 


63 32 


Springfield Drop Forging Com- 








pany, ..... 


760 46 


14 83 


775 29 


Springfield Supply Company, 


16 18 


16 


16 34 


Spy Company, .... 


161 80 


3 33 


165 13 


T. Casey Company, 


32 36 


24 


32 60 


T. F. Little Oil Company, . 


49 34 


1 48 


60 82 


Telegram Publishing Company, . 


32 36 


1 44 


33 80 


Thomas J. Gavin Company, 


32 36 


63 


32 99 


Townsend Co-operative Broom 


12 94 


_ 


12 94 


Company, 








Troy White Granite Company, . 


622 52 


3 11 


625 63 


Turners Falls Lumber Company, 


75 31 


_ 


75 31 


Union Fireworks Company, . 


48 54 


24 


48 78 


Union Shoe Company, . 


35 04 


54 


35 58 


W. B. Clarke Company, 


485 40 


2 43 


487 83 


W. E Rice Company, . 


145 62 


3 64 


149 26 


Wachusett Mills, .... 


461 13 


2 30 


463 43 


Wales Book Binding Company, . 


35 69 


36 


35 95 


Waltham Watch Tool Company 








of Springfield, Mass., 


72 81 


73 


73 54 


Wason Manufacturing Company, 


1,869 08 


9 30 


1,868 38 


Webber Lumber Company, . 


525 85 


2 62 


628 47 


Weymouth & Braintree Publish- 








ing Company, .... 


32 36 


— 


32 36 


Weymouth Seam-face Granite 








Company, 


101 93 


2 16 


104 09 


Whitney Manufacturing Com- 








pany, 


262 92 


6 84 


269 76 


William Bourne & Son Piano 








Company, 


161 80 


3 58 


165 38 


Woburn Light, Heat and Power 








Company, 


592 18 


5 74 


597 92 


Ziegler Electric Company, . 


485 40 


22 81 


508 21 




172,248 48 


$940 48 


f7S,188 96 



MifeCELLANEODS COLLECTIONS. 

A. O. Speare Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, $5 00 

Acme Manufacturing Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition for 1900 5 00 

Adams Gas Light Company, penalty for failure to file annual 

return with Gas and Electric Light Commissioners, . . 10 00 



180 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Adams Electric Light and Power Company, fee for filing cer- 
tificate of condition, $5 00 

Adams Marble Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Agawam Ice Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Albermarle Slate Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion, ' . 5 00 

Allen Machine Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

American Camera ManufacturingCompany, fee for filing cer- 
tificate of condition, 5 00 

American Pad and Paper Company, fee for filing certificate 
of condition, 5 00 

Amesbury Opera House Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, 5 00 

Arlington Co-operative Association, fee for filing certificate 

of condition, 5 00 

Ayer Electric Light Company, Gas and Electric Light Com- 
missioners' tax for 1902, 4 46 

B. L. Bragg Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, . 6 00 

Baker-Hunnewell Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

Biddle & Smart Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion, 5 00 

Blue Hill Granite Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion 5 00 

Boston, claim for tide water displaced in Dorchester Bay, . 330 00 

Boston Oregon Mast Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

Boston Real Estate Association of Boston, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, 5 00 

Bradley Fertilizer Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

Brimfield Hotel Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion 5 00 

Bullard Camera Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion, 5 00 

Burnett Paint Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Bush Market Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

C A. Edgarton Manufacturing Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, 5 00 

Cape Ann Printing Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

Carter, Rice & Co. Corporation, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

Carriage Wheel and Gear Company, fee for filing certificate 

of condition, 5 00 

Citizens Telephone and Telegraph Company, fee for filing 

certificate of condition, 5 00 

Chamberlain Metal AVeather Strip Company, fee for filing 
certificate of condition for 1901, 6 00 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 181 

Commonwealth Shoe and Leather Company, fee for filing 

certificate of condition, $5 00 

Cook & Grew Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Cutter Tower Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Coates Clipper Manufacturing Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, 5 00 

Carlow & Putnam Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

Child Acme Cutter and Press Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, o 00 

Daily News Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, . 5 00 

Damon Safe and Iron Works Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, 5 00 

Danvers Gas Light Company, Gas and Electric Light Com- 
missioners' tax for 1902, 5 55 

Dillon Machine Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion, 5 00 

Draper Machine Tool Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

Durgin Grocery and Provision Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, 5 00 

Fifield Tool Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, . 5 00 

Fisk Rubber Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, . 5 00 

Fisher-Churchill Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion, 5 00 

Fitchburg Manufacturing Company, fee for filing certificate 

of condition, 5 00 

Flint Building and Construction Company, fee for filing cer- 
tificate of condition, 5 00 

Fore River Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, . 5 00 

Frank Keene Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Franklin Educational Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, . . ' 5 00 

Franklin Telegraph Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

Frederick Kendall Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

George D. Emerson Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

Gilman Snow Guard Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

Gloucester Gas Light Company, penalty for failure to file 

annual return with Gas and Electric Light Commissioners, 10 00 
H. A. Lothrop Manufacturing Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, 5 00 

Hampden Automatic Telephone Company, fee for filing cer- 
tificate of condition, 5 00 

Hingham Seam-face Granite Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, o 00 



182 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Hollingsworth & Vose Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, 

Holly Whip Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 

Holyoke Steam and Gas Pipe Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, 

Hunt Spiller Manufacturing Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, 

Hutchins Narrow Fabric Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, 

J. P. Jordan Paper Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 

Jewett Piano Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 

K. & W. Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 

Kelly Shoe Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, . 

Kimball Brothers Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 

Knight, Alice H., claim for board of Margaret H Knight at 
Westborough Insane Hospital, 

Knowles Freeman Fish Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, 

Lamprey Boiler Furnace Mouth Protector Company, fee for 
filing certificate of condition, 

Leicester Grocery Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion, 

Leland Filter Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 

Lyons Granite Company, fee for filing certificate of condition. 

Maiden Mail Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 

Mansfield Co-operative Furnace Company, fee for filing cer- 
tificate of condition, 

Marblehead Gas and Electric Light Company, Gas and Elec- 
tric Light Commissioners' tax, 

^larshall Engine Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion, 

Martha's Vineyard Electric Light and Power Company, fee 
for filing certificate of condition, 

Martha's Vineyard Street Railway Company, Railroad Com- 
missioners' tax for 1902, 

ISIassachusetts Investment Company, fee for filing certificate 
of condition, 

Massachusetts Title Insurance Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, 

Massasoit Whip Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion, 

Mattakisset Hall Association, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 

Murray Cone Shoe Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 

New England & Savannah Steamship Company, fee for filing 
certificate of condition, 



e5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


80 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 88 


5 00 


5 00 


75 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 


5 00 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 183 

New England Dredging Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, $5 00 

New England Horse Exchange Company, fee for filing cer- 
tificate of condition, . . . . i . . . 5 00 

New England Rubber Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, . . . • 5 00 

Newark Shoe Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Newburyport Herald Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

Nutting, Charles H., defendant's costs in Nutting v. Common- 
wealth of Massachusetts, 20 00 

Oak Grove Creamery Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, 5 00 

Old Colony Rubber Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

Olympic Amusement Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, . 5 00 

Olympic Amusement Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

P. P. Emory Manufacturing Company, fee for filing certificate 

of condition, 5 00 

Page Electric Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Palmer, Charles J., claim for board of Gertrude S. Palmer at 

Dan vers Insane Hospital, 51 43 

Persons Manufacturing Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

Peter Ross Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, . 5 00 

Peter Wood Dyeing Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

Political Publishing Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, . 5 00 

Progressive Fraternity, Incorporated, claim for care and cus- 
tody of deposits for 1892, 66 

Quigley, J., & Son, damages to State hatchery at Winchester, 

caused by blasting, . . . . . . . . 28 00 

Quinsigamond Co-operative Baking Company, fee for filing 

certificate of condition, 5 00 

R. H. Smith Manufacturing Company, fee for filing certificate 

of condition, 5 00 

Randall-Faichney Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 00 

Robbins Spring Water Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

Rochdale Hall Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Roxbury Central Wharf, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Royal Steam Heater Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, 5 00 

S. A. Freeman Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion 5 00 



184 ATTO^EY-GENEEAL'S REPORT. [Jaiu 

Samuel VVinslovv Skate Manufacturing Company, fee for filing 
certificate of condition, $5 00 

Shady Hill Nursery Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

Silvey-Wyckoff Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion, .' 5 00 

Simonds Rolling Machine Company, fee for filing certificate 

of condition, 5 00 

Smith-Warren Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Smith, W. A., claim for board of Harriet R. Smith at West- 
borough Insane Hospital, 392 86 

South Hadley Falls Electric Light Company, fee for filing 
certificate of condition, 5 00 

Springfield Coliseum Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, 5 00 

Springfield Construction Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, 5 00 

Springfield Drop Forging Company, fee for filing certificate 

of condition, 5 00 

Springfield Steam Power Company, fee for filing certificate 

of condition, 5 00 

Standard Cloth Meter Compan}^ fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 GO 

Steere, Laura M., claim for board of Helen M. Steere at 

Westborough Insane Hospital, . . . . . . 879 20 

Sterling Worsted Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

Stoughton Gas and Electric Light Company, Gas and Electric 
Light Commissioners' tax for 1902, 8 00 

Suspension Transportation Company, fee for filing certificate 

of condition, 5 00 

Sutton, Richard W., claim for board of Fannie R. Smith at 

Westborough Insane Hospital, 105 00 

T. F. Little Oil Companj^ fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

Taunton Evening News, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Tribune Building Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

Troy White Granite Company, fee for filing certificate of 

condition, 5 00 

Union Express Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, 5 00 

Union Fire Works Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 5 00 

United States Compound Oxygen Company, fee for filing 

certificate of condition for 1901, 5 00 

W. E. Tillotson Manufacturing Company, fee for filing cer- 
tificate of condition, 5 00 

Wakefield Water Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition 5 00 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 185 

Warren Specialty Mantifaeturing Company, fee for filing 
certificate of condition, 

West Chop Steamboat Company, fee for filing certificate of 
condition, 

Weymouth Light and Power Company, Gas and Electric 
Light Commissioners' tax for 1902, 

Williamstown Gas Company, fee for filing certificate of con- 
dition, 

Wolf son, Joseph, corporation tax of the Joseph Wolf son 
Company for 1898, with interests and costs, 

Woodbury Company, fee for filing certificate of condition, . 

Wright & Colton Wire Cloth Company, fee for filing certifi- 
cate of condition, 

Ziegler Electric Company, fee for filing certificate of condi- 
tion, 

12,674 11. 



. fo 


00 


5 


00 


33 


51 


5 


00 


58 


81 


5 


00 


5 


00 


5 00 



186 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT 



[Jan , 





> 




O 




o 




(D 




^ 




>J 




f>> 




O 




fl 




Ol 












(U 




« 




M 




^ I 




c» 1 






??J 




o 


^ Si 


•— ^ 


rr, M 


H 


a, ^ 


h-H 


J-i tf 


Q 


-sa 


/5 


= 2 


3 




'^^ 


oj a 


^-H 


^ C3 




CJ fl 


s 


c3 ,4j 


H 




^ 


o .2 


^ 




H 
a:) 


'V* 




^ 


_ s- 


^ 


§- 


H 




^ 




H-i 


> ^ 








-4-> 


Q 


*|)W 




^ c5 




00 bo 


o 


•P 


H 


3 ^ 


^i^ 


S o^ 


Q 




<5 


£5 




i.i' 


X 


«l 


^ 


a -' 




a- a 




& 0^ 




cT S 




■+J 




tl 




o ^ 




^ cc 




a 3 




-<j 




5 ^^ 




H ^ 




o 




a 





s 


a 


S 


a 


e 


8 


a 


S 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 




u 




b 


b 


h 




ti 




b 






h 


z 




o 


o 


«2 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 
































hi 


^^ 


h< 


^ 


>< 


^ 


h 


»< 


h 


J, 


J^ 


J, 


u 




<v 


« 


« 


O) 


01 


« 


<u 


a> 


(l> 


0) 


V 


<u 


V 




C 


P4 


p. 


P< 


p. 


p. 


p. 


P< 


p. 


p. 


Pi 


P4 


p- 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 




b 


^ 


b 


>« 


L< 


s. 




b 




h 


u 


i^ 




1 


p< 


p. 


c 


p. 


c- 


p< 


p. 


P. 


p. 


p. 


P. 


p. 


p. 


a 


a 


c 


a 


D 


n 


.2 


a 


5 


5 


.2 


3 


D 


a 


« 


TS 


T3 


-o 


"D 


"C 


•73 


"O 


•e 


'O 


TS 


13 


"O 


"O 




a 


a 


a 


a 


p 


a 


a 


a 


3 


c 


a 


a 


3 




a 


a 


es 


a 


CS 


cS 


CS 


CS 


a! 


OS 


cS 


03 


as 




P 


"a 


"3 


5 


"s 


5 


"s 


"5 


3 


3 


"3 


"s 


"3 




<i-i 
















<M 


<«-l 


s-i 








^ 


^ 


& 


"^ 


& 


"& 


"^ 


& 


& 


& 


^ 


"^ 


& 




tS 


« 


eS 


cS 


OS 


es 


es 


a 


CS 


OS 


es 


CS 


CS 






h^ 


h3 


hJ 


hJ 


H^; 


^ 




t^ 


iJ 


•^ 


hJ 


h3 


n 




• 








• 






• 


• 


• 


• 


~ 


-. o 












, 


„ 










^ 




» "; 












« 


(4 










M 




^«^ S 












« 


« 










0) 




goi 


-iiT 


„ 


1 


ja" 


ja 


£ 




JA 


Jfl 


^ 


ja 


s 


^ 


1?^ S! 




























> o 


o 






o 


o 


-o 


^ 


5 


^ 


o 


o 


'V 


"o 




3=1 


« 




!tt 


*l 


-a 


"O 


5a 


5fcl 


^ 


« 


'O 


5fc 


£ 


3 


W 




S 


3 
QQ 


i 




3 
CO 


3 


3 


eg 


i 


3 


73 


• 


• 


• 






• 


. 


. 


. 


. 








« 




























60 




























OS 




























.a 


• 












. 


, 


. 


. 








o 




























o 












:3 
















S 


, 


. 


. 






& 




. 




. 








•E 












-o 
















O 












1 

•2 


• 


• 


• 


• 










t^ 


>l 


C^ 


>, 


>i 


M 


•■ 


>i 


>> 


>i 


X 


>i 


>1 






a 






□ 


a 




u 


a 


a 


Q 










a 


? 


? 


<x> 


•c 


•o 


£> 


« 


Oi 


V 










u 


be 


be 


u 




M 


u 


o 


u 










b 


h. 










h 


u 


s- 










es 


CS 


o 




CS 




B 


O 


CS 


es 


d 


es 


es 




^ 


hJ 


^ 


fe 


)-] 


P 


^ 


^ 


h^ 


hJ 


h:1 


h^ 


^ 


1 






• 










. 




, 




• 






















. 






































00 




























s 




























p^ 




• 
















. 








«M 




























o 










rT 


>1 




„ 








^ 












- 


o 


a 




^ 








•o 








9 


a> 


V 




(C 


a 


m 




3 










a 


.td 


n 




c 


c 




Si 


es 




c 


"3 






..i> 




o 


la 




3 




"^ 


J5 






o 


c 


^ 


> 


s 




^ 


IS 
o 


:^ 


o 






J2 


a 


o 


V 

* 




Q 

a 
s 






< 


P5 
< 


OQ 


5 


1 




O 


O 


1 


o 

O 

1 




i 


i 


^ 
^ 


a 


.a 


eS 
1^ 


»-3 


o 

1=1 


*5" 

pa 


"3 


1 


1^ 


1 


1 




• 




• 


• 


• 




• 


• 




• 


• 
































>»^ • 






• 


• 


• 




• 




• 


• 








t. = e8 




























SS& 




























l^§« 




• 


• 


• 


• 


2" 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 




o 0.2 g 




"a 








2 

m 

P< 












. 




in 


^ 


a 




J4 




a 

es 


"€ 


M 


M 








jfl 


o 


> 




O 




O 


O 


O 


_ 


•jf 




o 


S|« 






i 

a 






& 






h 
& 


8 


3 


1 


h 
& 


s 


Q) 


QJ 




® 




<» 


o 


o 


« 






"S 


« 




^ 


c2 


K 


^ 


5 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


s 


S 


1^ 


^ 




. « 


M 


^. 


^- 


s" 


<» 


^- 


i-T 


„- 


^" 


cf 


<o 








CI 


eo 


'"' 




(M 


,a 


^ 










s 


^ «s 


p< a 


a 


§ 


^ 


x» 


^ 


2 

es 


cS 


ca 


OS 


P< 


^ 


>> 

CS 




»? 




^ 


fe 


fe 


^ 


2 


S 


;^ 


^ 


^ 


a 


2 



1903.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



187 



£ s a 



E e s a s E 



EBB 



a a 
a a 



o 



c-Q.o,aft,c«p.o,a,o-o-&.Q,ftiao-G.o.M«^i-M. 
cpooooooooooooooooooo 

c a a a a a a a a ° S 3 S S ° ° .B S 3 3 S 

cacaaacaaaaaaaaqaaqaa 
c-eSeSeBoSeScseSeseaeJeaoSeScseJaesoSesos 

o508c3(SeSeSaSrto8eSe8eS(a«<fltS«Bca<fl«rt 



- ■ ^ ' ' * ■ 

I 5i . . - 
• I 5 § • § 

a « £ £ 
a a » • © 

s "3 -c a a 

a "S^o'o 

, . "S »6d'">'*^ 

iI/aai7fc.cac*.BO<aeaao>-r;o>sP 

Oc3«OOe8«oSOflSa«e8ea(3a®l;«Oa 



c^ W ^ 



&. W 



^ 




. 


^ 






a 






a 


a 




« 


do 


-o 


^•- 


<5 
>> 

.a 
o 

a 


a 


~ 


n 


2 


o 

123 




^ 


£ 


fa 
— 

5 


a 


O 


a 

o 






1 


0) 

i 


1 

3 


a 


o 

a 


32 


1 

a 

-a 


1 

a 

X! 


t3 

a 
_a 

2 


a 


O 


w 


P^ 


a 


H 


O 


O 


Oi 


M 



O w 

« o 



o .5 



i- « S O 



<l o !z; Q |z; 03 



& a a ^ 

a> o z: « 

^ ft S Sz; 



a a p. 
a a a 
a. > » 



B h >- 



^ > ^ pLH 123 ^ 2i 



i-l i^ >o 



a a cs 



a a 

3 3 
•-3 ►^ 



3 "s 3 



^* jj" ^ > > P- o o 

"Stjtjoooajw 



188 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



nj 


$-1 


n 


O 


•^ 


CU 


o 


<D 




U 


o 


^ 


s 


03 


-tf 


a 


=5 


.2 








CJ 


o 


a 






-*-> 


a 


8 


03 




t-> 


CD 


a 


> 


»» 




fM 




O 


bo 


Oi 


D 





o ^ 

■§Q 

£ bt 
^ a 
^ ',^ 

+^ V- 

I ^ 

;-! a> 
o -a 
a *^ 

> a 

o -s 

-^ if 

o a 

CO .^ 

5 o 

a - 
§-.1 



OD O) 

I s; I 

(D ^ .. 



03 flj 
^5 







2° 
































. ^ 
































s§ 
































a-s 
































































|o 
































OtS 
































csa 
































o 
































. *- 






























. 


gU) 






















. 






. 


a 


is® 


a 


a 




a 




a 


a 


a 




3 


a 


a 


a 


■g 




■Z° > 


I, 






^ 




fc. 




i< 








b 






o 


■rt-n 


o 


o 




o 




o 


o 


o 




o 


o 


o 


o 




K £ii 














«4-( 


•+-. 




<M 




«l-l 


«-! 


bl 


« S M 


>-, 






u 




















0) 


O-Q-S 


9i 


« 




<s 




V 


01 


« 




a> 


<a 


a> 


« 


n, 


O a «« 


a, 


&. 


a' 


& 


"3 


a 


&4 


a. 


r^ 


P. 


P. 


P, 


a- 




o 


S P.<*-i 


o 


o 


o 


S 


o 


o 


o 


G 


o 


o 


o 


p 




;h 






s. 




b 


!0 




bl 






>-■ 


bi 


>-i 






a 


a 


s 


o 


P4 
a 


3 

2 


P. 
a 


a, 
a 


c 




P4 

a 


Pi 

a 


P4 

a 


a 






S -^ 






o 












o 












"3 


'H " a 


■3 


"O 


eu 


73 


a 


■a 


■c 


rs 


p. 


TS 


■a 


"O 


73 




a 


2 o S 


a 


a 


o 


fl 


o 


□ 


a 


a 


o 


a 


a 


a 


a 




ea 


aSx: 


a 


c3 


2. 


es 




CS 


eS 


es 


P. 


CS 


CS 


CS 


a 




— H 


s'Si 








^ 


















«2 


3 


5 


a 


3 




3 


3 


3 


o 


3 


3 


3 


3 






"- « s 






." 
























"^ 


^S-S 


& 


& 


*f 


"B 


c? 


"^ 


'B 


"^ 


^J 


"% 


'^ 


"^ 


"^ 




C3 


cS'*-i — 


cS 


a 


o 


es 


a> 


c3 


es 


a 


o 


a 


a 


es 


es 




h-] 


hJ 


J 


iJ 


;z3 


^q 


C5 




1^ 




^ 


hJ 


1-5 




-3 


■6 










• 






• 






• 


• 






• 


a> 
































be 
































b 
































es 














s^ 


















Ji 
































o 

g 














o 








• 


• 
















*n 






b 




















i 

u 

o 




a 


a 
a 






a. 

1 
















. 




1 


S^ 


s 


es 
be 


15^ 




.2 


. 


>i 


^ 


^r 




t^ 


a" 
o 


>, 






C3 


i 


2 

CS 


2 


1 


> 
"S 

u 


i 


a 


"3) 




1 


a 

1 




3 






d 


iH 


£ 


3 


o 


« 




S 


3 


s 




0$ 


A 


o 




fa 


^ 


d5 


pa 


03 


C5 


^ 


J 


m 


s 


O 


ij 


<1 


fa 


> 


• 


• 


• 




• 




• 






• 




• 






• 


H 
































































*Si) 
































3 


• 


• 


a 




is 


• 


• 








• 


• 


, 


• 


• 


fa 


1 


1 


a 

to 




2 

3 

2 


i 


6 


es" 

a 
> 

•-5 


1 

3 


1 




60 

a 

2 

<1 


o 

O 


a" 

OS 

2 

a 

M 


5 






1 

GS 


es 
O 




Pli 


a 

es 




c 

1 


2 

<1 


1 

Ci3 


1 


a 


1 


OQ 

es 


S3 

5 




• 


• 


• 


. 


• 


. 


• 




. 
















• 


• 




1 

3 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


a 






2" 
2 


• 


es" 




























OD 




.^ 


it 








d, 












a 






P. 








« 


^ 

^ 


i 




3 


o 
1^ 


1 


od" 


> 


a 


3 


i 


O 




m 


eS 


1 






o 


O 


1 


"eS 


1 


a 
a 


s5 


1 


1 


& 
^ 


a 
a 




<1 


^ 


iz; 


5Z5 


o 


^ 


^ 


Q 


M 


P. 


^ 


^ 


!z3 


^ 




, 


• to" 


oT 


^- 


^- 


•^ 


^ 


t^ 


oo" 


^ 


■^^ 


s" 


^ 


00 


sf 


oT 


® !S m 




IM 


CO 










(M 






IM 


(M 




(N 






2i 

•-3 


i 


4 


1 


a, 


S3 




^ 

a 


1 


3 
•-5 


a 

3 


a 

3 


>> 


3 


a) 

3 



1903.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



189 




^ oi 



.2 o 



W O H 

I « t 

ago 

< ^ ^ 



o 


i 








o 




^ 
& 


□ 


§ 

a 




s 






















> 


^ 


S 


^ 


O 


12; 


1?5 


S 


> 


S 


^ 














„- 




o 




^ 




(M 


(f» 














(M 






i 


^ 


P 




ft 
c2 


t? 


ti 


§ 


s 


< 


<1 


< 


<5 


<i 


o 


O 


tt 


« 



190 ATTORNEY-GENEKAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



EULES OF PEACTICE m INTERSTATE 
RENDITIO:^. 



Every application to the Governor for a requisition upon the ex- 
ecutive authority of any other State or Territory, for the delivery 
up and return of any offender who has fled from the justice of this 
Commonwealth, must be made by the district or prosecuting attor- 
ney for the county or district in which the offence was committed, 
and must be in duplicate original papers, or certified copies thereof. 

The following must appear by the certificate of the district or 
prosecuting attorney : — 

(a) The full name of the person for whom extradition is asked, 
together with the name of the agent proposed, to be properly 
spelled. 

(b) That, in his opinion, the ends of public justice require that 
the alleged criminal be brought to this Commonwealth for trial, at 
the public expense. 

(c) That he believes he has sufficient evidence to secure the 
conviction of the fugitive. 

(d) That the person named as agent is a proper person, and 
that he has no private interest in the arrest of the fugitive. 

(e) If there has been any former application for a requisition 
for the same person, growing out of the same transaction, it must 
be so stated, with an explanation of the reasons for a second 
request, together with the date of such application, as near as may 
be. 

(/) If the fugitive is known to be under either civil or criminal 
arrest in the State or Territory to which he is alleged to have fled, 
the fact of such arrest and the nature of the proceedings on which 
it is based must be stated. 

(g) That the application is not made for the purpose of enforc- 
ing the collection of a debt, or for any private purpose v^hatever ; 
and that, if the requisition applied for be granted, the criminal 
proceedings shall not be used for any of said objects. 

(h) The nature of the crime charged, with a reference, when 
practicable, to the particular statute defining and punishing the* 
same. 



1903.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 191 

(i) If the ofifence charged is not of recent occurrence, a satis- 
factory reason must be given for the delay in making the applica- 
tion. 

1. In all cases of fraud, false pretences, embezzlement or for- 
gery, when made a crime by the common law, or any penal code 
or statute, the affidavit of the principal complaining witness or in- 
formant, that the application is made in good faith, for the sole 
purpose of punishing the accused, and that he does not desire or 
expect to use the prosecution for the purpose of collecting a debt, 
or for any private purpose, and will not directly or indirectly use 
the same for any of said purposes, shall be required, or a sufficient 
reason given for the absence of such affidavit. 

2. Proof by affidavit of facts and circumstances satisfying the 
Executive that the alleged criminal has fled from the justice of the 
State, and is in the State on whose Executive the demand is 
requested to be made, must be given. The fact that the alleged 
criminal was in the State where the alleged crime was committed 
at the time of the commission thereof, and is found in the State 
upon which the requisition was made, shall be sufficient evidence, 
in the absence of other proof, that he is a fugitive from justice. 

3. If an indictment has been found, certified copies, in dupli- 
cate, must accompany the application. 

4. If an indictment has not been found by a grand jury, the 
facts and circumstances showing the commission of the crime 
charged, and that the accused perpetrated the same, must be 
shown by affidavits taken before a magistrate. (A notary public 
is not a magistrate within the meaning of the statutes.) It must 
also be shown that a complaint has been made, copies of which 
must accompany the requisition, such complaint to be accompa- 
nied by affidavits to the facts constituting the offence charged by 
persons having actual knowledge thereof, and that a warrant has 
been issued, and duplicate certified copies of the same, together 
with the returns thereto, if any, must be furnished upon an appli- 
cation. 

5. The official character of the officer taking the affidavits or 
depositions, and of the officer who issued the warrant, must be 
duly certified. 

6. Upon the renewal of an application, — for example, on the 
ground that the fugitive has fled to another State, not having been 
found in the State on which the first was granted, — new or certi- 
fied copies of papers, in conformity with the above rules, must be 
furnished. 

7. In the case of any person who has been convicted of any 
crime, and escapes after conviction, or while serving his sentence. 



192 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 1903. 

the application may be made by the jailer, sheriff, or other officer 
having him in custody, and shall be accompanied by certified 
copies of the indictment or information, record of conviction and 
sentence upon which the person is held, with >he affidavit of such 
person having him in custody, showing such escape, with the cir- 
cumstances attending the same. 

8. No requisition will be made for the extradition of any fugi- 
tive except in compliance with these rules.