
    Catherine Leonard vs. Joseph Stott.
    It is a question of fact wlr/jfc'ier articles of household furniture contracted for by a spend* thrift under guardianship are necessaries within the Gen. Sts. c. 109, § 10.
    Contract on an account annexed for articles of household furniture sold and delivered to a spendthrift under guardianship.
    At the trial in the superior court without a jury, Dewey, J., refused the defendant’s request for a ruling “ that as matter of law the articles sold were not necessaries within the meaning of the statute allowing a spendthrift under guardianship to contract for necessaries, and so the plaintiff could not maintain her action ; ” and found that part of them were necessaries within the statute, and ordered judgment for the plaintiff accordingly. The defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      
      H. L. Parker, for the defendant.
    
      A. Thayer, for the plaintiff.
   By the Court.

The only question in this case is, whether articles of household furniture, sold to a spendthrift, can, under any circumstances, be deemed necessaries, within the Gen. Sts. e. 109, § 10. We are of opinion that such articles may, under some circumstances, be necessaries. This being so, it was a question of fact, whether the articles sued for in this action were reasonably needed for the comfort of the spendthrift, and were sold under circumstances which made them necessaries within the statute. Upon this question, we have no right to revise the find ing of the judge who tried the case. Exceptions overruled.  