#### The State v. Joseph Martin and others.

From Wayne.

indictment for a riot “ in pulling down, breaking', removing and destroy-' “ ing the dwelling house of one Lucy Showell, she the said Lucy be- “ ing in the peaceable possession thereof.” upon the trial, it appeared in evidence that Lucy Showell was a feme covert, but her husband did not live with her. The Defendants being convicted, the Court awarded a new trial, for

In an indictment for a riot in pulling down a dwelling house, as well as in burglary, for breaking and entering' a dwelling home, the indictment must set forth whose house it is. Here it was the dwelling house of the husband, and should have been so charged. If a person inhabit a dwelling house, as the wife, guest, servant, or part of the family of another, it is in law the occupation of such other person, and must be so laid in the indictment.

The indictment charged, “ that Joseph Martin, Thomas is Durden, Joei Newsom, Isaac. Newsom, together with Si divers other persons to the Jurors unknown, being riot- “ ers, routers, and disturbers of the peace of the state, on “ the ninth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thou-Si sand eight hundred and seventeen, with force and arms, “ that is to say, with sticks, staves, and other offensive “ weapons, at the county oi‘ Wayne aforesaid, unlawfully, “ riotously and routousiy, did assemble and gather toge- “ ther to disturb the peace of the state; and being so as- “ sembied and gathered together, the, dwelling house of íS one Lucy Showcll, sise the said Lucy being in the peacc-44 able possession thereof, then and there unlawfully, riot-í£ ously and routously, did pull down, remove, break and “ destroy, and other wrongs to the said Lucy Showell “ then and there did, to her great damage, and against the “ peace and dignity of the State.”

Upon the trial it appeared in evidence, that Lucy Show-ell was a feme covert j that her husband had gone from the State, leaving her behind, residing in the house $ that since the commission of the acts charged in the indictment, *534he had returned to the State, but liad not since resided with his wife. The presiding Judge charged the Jury, that evidence of taking down the roof of the house in which j^y sho^-eU resided, against her consent, supported the indictment, and that the Defendants might be convicted, although the indictment did not charge the house to be the dwelling house of the husband. The Defendants were convicted, and a rule for a new trial was obtained, upon the ground of misdirection by the Court. The rule ivas discharged, and the Defendants appealed to this Court.

Tavi.or, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The offence charged in the indictment is not a general riot, but a riot which consisted specifically in pulling down, removing, breaking, and destroying a dwelling house. So far it resembles the case of the Queen v. Soley and others, 2 Salk. 595 ; which was an information for a riot for taking from the hinges, the door of a certain house called the Guildhall of the town of Bewdly. In that case, the judgment was arrested, because it did not appear whose house it was ; and calling it a Guildhall did not make it so. In the case before us, the house is laid as the dwelling house of one Lucy Showell, and as in her possession. It appears from the case, that Lucy Showell was, at the time of the riot, the wife of a man who was then out of the state, but who has since returned, though he does not reside with his wife. Now in the case of burglary, it is a well settled rule, that if a person inhabit a dwelling house, as the wife, guest, servant, or part of the family of another, it is in law' the occupation of such other person, and must be so laid in the indictment. And this rule was strongly exemplified in Fane’s case, Kelyng, 43, where it w'as holden, that if the house of a feme, covert, who lives apart from her husband, be broken, though the husband had expressly refused to have any thing to do with the lease, and the landlord made the agreement with the wife alone, yet it must *535be laid to be the house of the husband. There is no ground whatever on which to infer that the separate property of this house was in the wife, or that in point of law she liad the. exclusive possession of it. For whatever might have been alleged in favor of such a position, had the husband left the state under circumstances indicating an intention of not returning, yet in fact he has returned, and the wife is consequently subject to the disabilities of coverture. As the riot laid in the indictment is not distinguishable from a burglary, so far as it respects the description of the property or possession of the house, and as, according to the case in Salkeld, the proof must establish the allegation, there must be a new trial.