
    Commonwealth versus Ann Robbins.
    Upon the trial of an indictment against a married woman for larceny, evidence that her husband deposited a sum of money to procure the absence of a witness on the part of the government is inadmissible, unless it is shown that she was privy to the transaction.
    The defendant having been convicted belore the Municipal Court, upon an indictment for larceny from the person, appealed to this Court. Upon her trial here evidence was admitted, after objection by her counsel, that her husband deposited a sum of money for the use of the person whose pro perty she had stolen, to be paid over to him in case he should not appear at the Municipal Court to testify against her, and that this sum was afterwards paid over to him, he not having appeared according to his recognizance. There was no evidence that the defendant was privy to the attempt by her husband to compound the prosecution, but as the larceny by some one was clearly proved, and as the circumstantial evidence was strong against the defendant, the jury were instructed that they might infer her privity and consent to this act of her husband.
    The jury found a verdict against the defendant, and if the evidence above mentioned was improperly admitted, a new trial was to be granted.
    The case was shortly spoken to by Morton, Attorney General, for the commonwealth, and A. Moore for the defendant.
   Parker C. J.

said the Court had come to the determination, that the evidence of acts done by the defendant’s husband without her knowledge, was improperly admitted, and that a new trial must be granted.  