CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. 903 
“COMPULSION OF HUSBAND 
“34, A married woman is not free from criminal responsibility 
for doing or omitting to do an act merely because the act or 
omission takes place in the presence of her husband. 
“But a married woman is not criminally responsible for doing 
or omitting to do an act which she is actually compelled by her 
husband to do or omit to do, and which is done or omitted to be 
done in his presence, except in the case of an act or omission 
which would constitute an offence punishable with death, or an 
offence of which actual danger to the life or grievous bodily harm 
to the person of another, or an intention to cause such danger or 
harm, is an element, in which case. the presence of her husband 
is immaterial.” 
“LIABILITY OF HUSBAND AND WIFE FOR OFFENCES COMMITTED BY 
EITHER WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER'S PROPERTY. 
“ 37. When a husband and wife are living together neither of 
them incurs any criminal responsibility for doing or omitting to 
do any act with respect to the property of the other, except in : the 
case of an act or omission of which an intention to injure or 
defraud some other person is an element, and except in the case 
of an acl done by either of them when leaving or deserting, or 
when about to leave or desert, the other. 
“Subject to the foregoing provisions a husband and wife are, 
each of them, criminally responsible for any act done by him or 
her with respect to the property of the other, which would be an 
offence if they were not husband and wife, and to the same extent 
as if they were not husband and wife. 
* But neither of them can institute criminal proceedings against 
the other while they are living together.” 
The provisions of sections 33 and 34 are probably not quite in 
accord with the existing law, which is, however, obscure. Section 
34, it will be noticed, treats the case of a wife as an instance of 
the general law as to compulsion. 
Section 37 expresses the existing law of Queensland and 
England so far as regards the husband. It is not easy to see why 
the same rules should not apply to the wife. 
This branch of the criminal law has been taken as an illustra- 
tion of the nature of the work of codification, because, as already 
suggested, it is of the widest application, and embodies rules 
which, for the most part, are not peculiar to any locality or any 
special system of jurisprudence ; because the question whether 
these rules are good or bad depends upon general principles of 
which laymen and lawyers are equally competent judges ; and, 
finally, because those rules afford an excellent illustration of the old 
saying that the common law is the embodiment of common sense. 
