Chapman sued Rose for board of Rose’s-step-mother, under an agreement to pay what it was reasonably worth. The old lady was about seventy years old, and Rose endeavored to show that her services were such as to reduce the value of board. Only one exception was taken on the trial.
Mrs. Chapman having been sworn for plaintiff below, this question was put on cross-examination, but ruled out because-offered expressly for a single purpose that was not lawful r “ State whether you had the charge and management of the-household matters in your family, and the direction of the work.” Defendant’s counsel, in putting this question, said that his object was, if receiving an affirmative answer, to show admissions of Mrs. Chapman as to the work of the step-mother while living with plaintiff.
No objection was raised against showing what work the old lady did perform, and it is not likely any would have been-made to the question itself if not put for the special purpose named. We do not see any error in the ruling. The question was not put with any view to an impeachment, and was unnecessary for any such purpose. Mrs. Chapman was
There is no error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed with costs.