This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1918. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Court" under R. L. c. 217, 81, as amended by St. 1911, c. 470, 1, and is valid, although it neither was authorized nor ratified by a vote passed at a meeting of all the justices of that court. In this case it teas stated that it had not been and hardly would be contended that such an appointment could be made by a committee of the judges of the Superior Court which was not holding court at the time. Such appointment by the judge presiding at a sitting of the court was the exercise of the judicial faculty which under the circumstances imports forethought and personal responsibility, and the fact, that such appointment was made by the judge in accordance with the recommendation of a committee of the justices of the Superior Court called the probation committee, does not make it susceptible of the construction that it was an unthinking adoption of the work of that committee. Contract for one month's salary alleged "to be due to the plaintiff as probation officer of the Superior Court for Suffolk County for the month of January, 1917. Writ dated February 2, 1917. In the Superior Court the action was heard by Hardy, J., without a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts, among which were the following: On April 8, 1899, for the first time a committee on probation matters was appointed by the justices of the Superior Court. On June 6, 1903, it was voted by the justices "That the selection and appointment of probation officers, the determination of their compensation, the supervision of their work, and everything incidental thereto, be assigned to the committee, . . . DEGREESnaming three justices] . . . to be as far as possible exclusive of action by other Justices." A probation committee, varying in membership, continued in existence from that time to the date ...