#### WILLIAM W. VASS, ADMOR. OF *N. N.*SOUTHALL *vs.*MARY SOUTHALL.

A gold watch, worth one hundred dollars, the gift of a husband to his wife, cannot in our country he considered as among the *paraphernalia*of the wife, when the husband at the time of the gift was a man of limited means or small property, and afterwards died insolvent.

W'hat shall be considered as *paraphernalia*of the wife is a question for the Court, but *quere,*whether a Court of *Law*can taire notice of it at all 1

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Granville County, at Spring Term, 1844, his Honor Judge Dick presiding.

This was an action of trover for a gold watch. The evidence was as follows: The defendant was the widow of the plaintiff’s intestate N. N. Southall. It was in proof that the said N. N. Southall was an innkeeper in the town of Henderson ; that his circumstances were limited, but he was in good credit, until shortly before his death; and that he did not leave property sufficient to pay his debts. It was also in proof that the watch, which is the subject of this suit, and which was proved to be worth about one hundred dollars, was what is called a gentleman’s watch, that it was purchas*302e(j jj. Southall some three or four years before bis death, and that it was generally worn by the defendant, but ^ was occasionally wom by her husband. There was no evidence of an express gift to the defendant; but it was proved the defendant had said at one time, in the presence of her husband, that he had given her the watch, and that, at another time, the defendant said she had lent her husband one hundred dollars and held the watch in payment of the loan. It was proven that the defendant had possession of the watch — that a demand was made by the plaintiff before the action was brought, and the defendant refused to surrender it.

His HoNob, charged the jury, that even if they should be of opinion that the plaintiff's intestate had made a gift of the watch to the defendant, he being insolvent at the time of his death, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment being rendered accordingly, the defendant appealed.

No counsel in this Court for the plaintiff.

JE. <?. *Meade and Iredell*for the defendant,

contended that the watch was a part of the wife’s *paraphernalia*and that she was entitled to retain it against the administrator of the husband, though the latter was insolvent at his death, and cited 2 Blae, Com. 435 — 436,

Daaiel, J.

The articles, comprised under the *term, par a-*phernalia, include such apparel and ornaments of the wife, as are suitable *to*her condition in life. 2Blac. Com. 436. What are to be so considered, is a question to be decided by the Court, and *will*depend upon *the station*and fortune of the parties. 2 Roper on Hus. & Wife, 141. The Judge told the jury, that, even if they *wefe of*opinion, that the plaintiff’s intestate had made a gift of the watch to defendant, he being insolvent at the time of his death, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Without going into the question, whether a Court of Law now takes any notice of *paraphernalia,**303we must however concur with his Honor and say, that the watch in controversy was not *paraphernalia,*under the circumstances the husband was in at the first time he permití-ed his wife to use the said watch, and afterwards up to the time oí his death. The case states that the husband was always a man of limited means, which we must undersand á man of but little property ; and his estate was found to be insolvent at his death. Such a watch could not be considered suitable to the wife of a man in such circumstances in our state of society.

Per Curiam, judgment affirmed.