
    The State, v. John Parkerson, and Mary Parkerson, his wife,
    A wife may be indicted, convicted and punished in conjunction with her husband^ For although coertion is to be presumod from his presence, still, it is clear that this is only one of those presumptions, or inferences, classed as prima facie, .that may be rebutted by testimony, and hence presents a question for the jury.
    Tried before the Recorder, in the City Court of Charleston, July Term, 1846.
    This was an indictment for assault and battery upon one Mary Jane Adams. The indictment charges, “John Parkerson and Mary Parkerson, residents, &c., on the 7th of January, 1846. with force and arms, &c., at, &c., in and upon one Mary Jane Adams, &c., did make an assault, and her, the said Mary Jane Adams, then and there did beat, bruise, wound, and ill-treat, &c.” The defendants plead not guilty, and Parkerson, the husband, conducted the defence in person, aided by Mr. Press-ley, as his counsel.
    After much testimony had been introduced on both sides, the case was argued before the jury by the Attorney General and Mr. Parkerson, and finally submitted to them as one of mere fact.
    They found a verdict of guilty. When sentence was about being pronounced, the defendant,Parkerson, made the objections now taken as the grounds for a motion in arrest of judgment, viz:
    1st. That the husband and wife cannot be joined for an assault and battery committed in his presence.
    2d. That the indictment in this case does not set forth whether the assault and battery were committed by the husband, or wife, but charges it upon both; whereas, it is respectfully submitted» that the indictment should have set forth whether the husband was charged with an offence committed by himself, or by the wife, in his presence.
    PRessley, for the motion,
    Bailey, Attorney General, contra.
    
   Withers J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is a mistake to affirm that a wife may not be indicted, convicted and punished in conjunction with her husband; while it is true, that if she committed a bare theft or even a burglary by the coertion of her husband, she shall not suffer punishment; and while it is also laid down that coertion is to be presumed from his presence, still it is quite as clear that this is only one of those presumptions or inferences classed as prima facie, that may be rebutted by testimony, and hence presents a question for the jury, which in this case has been resolved against the defendants, and certainly not without foundation. All here said is well supported by what may be found in Russell on Crimes, from page 23 to 25 inclusive.

The motion is therefore dismissed.  