“[W]here ... actual delivery is impractical, some symbolic or constructive form of delivery may be present and sufficient to warrant a conclusion that a gift has been made.”
How later courts described this case
- “[W]here ... actual delivery is impractical, some symbolic or constructive form of delivery may be present and sufficient to warrant a conclusion that a gift has been made.”
- "Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous" [citation omitted]
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Brown, J.
(concurring). Two less than cosmic thoughts occurred to me as I sifted through this voluminous record. The first is that I wish the needy knew how to put the law to work for them as assiduously as the greedy seem to do. See Doliner v. Brown, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 692, 698 (1986) (Brown, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Second, why do the poor and the disadvantaged receive different treatment in our courts than the privileged and wealthy? The central figure is this drama, Dorothy B. Edinburg, has admitted committing perjury several times. 1 Cf. Katz v. Commonwealth, 379 Mass. 305, 316-317 (1979). Given her blatant admission that she had falsified documents and committed perjury in order to deceive the trial court and her husband, I am compelled to conclude that she attempted to manipulate the legal system and make a mockery of our system of justice. Mrs. Edinburg’s “conduct constituted both an affront to the court’s dignity and a perversion of the court’s purposes as an institution for just resolution of legitimate disputes.” Mias-kiewicz v. Commonwealth, 380 Mass. 153, 158 (1980).
If Mrs. Edinburg were poor, black or on welfare, I suspect that she would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the *211 law. 2 When will perjury become a crime for such perpetrators as she — lawyers, entrepeneurs, developers, so-called “wheeler-dealers” and the like? See and compare Commonwealth v. Coleman, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 541, 542-545 (1985), S.C., 397 Mass. 1001 (1986), for an example of how peijury is dealt with in the usual context. It cannot be said often enough that doctors, lawyers, merchants, politicians and other professionals must not be encouraged to believe that there is one standard for them and another for those less advantaged citizens among us.
In the instant case Mrs. Edinburg would have us believe that a lie in the pursuit of wealth is not an indictable offense. Perjury is no less a crime when the objective is fortune rather than freedom. See G. L. c. 268, § 1. See also Nolan, Criminal Law § 601 (1976). How can we still pretend that all persons are treated equally in our legal system? It is a fiction, but we cling to the myth. That old refrain — “Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time” — must have application to persons regardless of race, sex or station in life. See Commonwealth v. Leavitt, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 585, 597 (1984) (Brown, J., concurring).
Mrs. Edinburg stated under oath, at the trial of the action concerning ownership of the art works, that her sworn deposition testimony concerning the transfer of the art works to the children’s trusts had not been true.
Moreover, it appears that the trial judge warrantably could have held Mrs. Edinburg in contempt for her conduct in these various proceedings. See,e.g., Miaskiewicz v. Commonwealth, 380Mass. 153,157-158(1980).