
    Elizabeth A. Norton & others vs. Charles H. Griffin.
    Essex.
    November 10, 1893.
    November 29, 1893.
    Present: Field, C. J., Allen, Holmes, Knowlton, & Mobton, JJ.
    
      Charge for Services — Question upon Cross-examination — Discretion of Presiding Justice.
    
    B., while acting for A. under a power of attorney, received a sum of money, from which he deducted a very large amount for his services, no price. having been fixed in advance. In an action by A. against B. to recover the amount deducted, B. having testified what kind of work he was accustomed to do at the time he was acting for A., the latter was allowed to ask B. in cross-examination what wages he was receiving therefor. Held, that there was nothing so special in the services performed for A. as to render this evidence incompetent, although B.’s usual work was not like that which A. employed him to do, and that, moreover, the question was within the range which the presiding justice might permit on cross-examination.
    Contract, to recover the sum of $2,002, retained by the defendant for services rendered the plaintiffs as their attorney. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bond, J., there was evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs, who, as heirs at law of a person deceased, were entitled to $8,466, gave the defendant powers of attorney to act in their behalf, and to protect their interests in the courts and elsewhere; that the defendant received $8,466, and accounted to the plaintiffs therefor, less $2,002, which he retained for services. The only issue tried was what the services of the defendant were reasonably worth. During the time the defendant was acting under the powers of attorney he was employed as a grocer’s clerk, and the question put to him on cross-examination was, “ What wages were you receiving from this grocer for your services ? ”
    The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      J). O. Allen, for the defendant.
    
      W. N. Niles Gr. J. Carr, for the plaintiffs.
   Allen, J.

The defendant made a very high charge for services respecting which no price had been fixed in advance. To meet this charge, the defendant having testified what kind of work he was accustomed to do at the time while he was acting for them, the plaintiffs were allowed to ask him, in cross-examination, what wages he was receiving therefor. There was nothing so special in the character of the services performed for the plaintiffs as to render this evidence incompetent, although his usual work was not like that which the plaintiffs employed him to do. Moreover, it was within the range which the presiding justice in his discretion might permit on cross-examinatian, for the purpose of aiding the jury in forming an opinion of his capacity and character, and the reasonableness of his charge. ' Exceptions overruled.  