The opinion
Order sustaining answer in abatement and plea in abatement affirmed. This is an appeal by the petitioner from an order of *798 the District Court sustaining an answer in abatement and a plea in abatement filed by the respondents to a petition for review under G. L. c. 151A, § 42, of an adverse decision of the board of review of the division of employment security. A copy of the petition and a copy of the order of notice were mailed to the director but no copy of either was given to him for transmission to the other respondent, but a copy of each was given to the other respondent by the petitioner. One respondent filed a plea in abatement and the other an answer in abatement. Both were properly sustained. This method of service did not comply with § 42. One purpose of § 42 in respect to service by the director is to put to rest any question of service without reliance upon the say-so of the individual who commenced the proceeding. See Kravitz v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 326 Mass. 419 .
John O’Brien, for the petitioner.
Phillip Lemelman, Assistant Attorney General, (Israel L. Cohen with him,) for the director of the division of employment security.