
    Benjamin F. Willey & another vs. George Beach.
    Berkshire.
    September 8. — 9, 1874.
    Morton & Endicott, JJ., absent.
    Whether a sewing machine is a necessary for a wife, in such a sense that the husband can be sued for it, is a question of fact for the jury.
    Contract for the use of a sewing machine. At the trial in the District Court of Southern Berkshire, it appeared that the plaintiffs had let a sewing machine to the defendant’s wife; that she had used it for household purposes; that the rent therefor had not been paid; and that the contract had been entirely with the wife, the husband not having been consulted in regard to it. The judge ruled that a sewing machine was not such a necessary as, if furnished to the wife by a third party at her request, would make the husband, liable therefor. To this ruling the plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
    
      H. J. Dunham, for the plaintiffs.
    N. W. Shores, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

The question whether the sewing machine was a necessary for the wife, in such a sense that the husband could be sued for it, was for the jury. Raynes v. Bennett, 114 Mass. Exceptions sustained.  