
    The State v. Hats.
    Married Women — Criminal Law and Practice.— The wearing apparel of a married woman, furnished by her husband as' a marital duty, remains his personal property during his life, and he can sell it or give it away during that period, but she may retain such as she may have at his death as her paraphernalia; and an indictment, for the stealing of such apparel, during the husband’s life, charging it to be the property of the wife, can not be sustained.
    APPEAL from the Miami Circuit Court.
   Perkins, J.

Margaret Hays was indicted for stealing certain articles of clothing, such as dresses, &c., charged to be the property of Matilda Risinger.

The Court instructed the jury, that, if they found that the goods stolen were articles of wearing apparel of Matilda Risinger, and that she was, at the time of the theft, the wife of John Risinger, and said goods were simply provided for her by her husband, under the legal obligation of husbands to support their wives, and were not specially presented to her as a gift, then the goods were not her separate property, but were the property of her husband, and the indictment could not be supported, &c.

Oscar B. Hord, Attorney General, and T. C. Whiteside, for the appellant.

The instruction was right. The wearing apparel of a married woman, furnished by her husband as a marital duty, remains his personal property during his life, and he can sell it or give it away during that period, but she has a right to retain it after his death, as her paraphernalia. Bouvier’s Dic. h. t.; Wharton’s do. h. t., and authorities cited.

Per Curiam. — The judgment is affirmed, with costs.  