<p>ARCHER J.: The appellant wife sued the respondent husband for the return of certain articles, one part of which was given to the wife by the husband during their marriage, a second part of which represented the wife’s own self-acquired property and the third part consisted of articles entrusted to her or which she was keeping for third parties. The learned circuit judge gave judgment for the husband on the ground that “at common law no action lies between husband and wife” and that the true owners of the articles must themselves sue the wife with the husband as co-defendant. The circuit judge held further that the Married Women’s Property Ordinance, 1890,1 must be restricted to property acquired by means of wages, earnings or money in some occupation or trade carried on separately from her husband. On these grounds the learned circuit judge non-suited the wife who has appealed against the judgment on the ground that:</p><p><em>(a) The evidence does not support the judgment of the circuit court;</em></p><p><em>(…</em></p>