Gifts between husband and wife were nevertheless valid under certain conditions.  It was permissible to make a present of clothing and to bestow various tokens of affection, such as ornaments.  The husband could present his wife with enough money to rebuild a house of hers which had burned.[75] The Emperor Marcus Aurelius permitted a wife to give her husband the sum necessary to obtain public office or to become a senator or knight or to give public games.[76] A gift was also legal if made by the husband in apprehension that death might soon overtake him; if, for instance, he was very sick or was setting out to war, or to exile, or on a dangerous journey.[77] The point in all gifts was, that neither party should become richer by the donation.[78]

Some further considerations of the relation of husband and wife will aid in setting forth the high opinion which Roman law entertained of marriage and its constant effort to protect the wife as much as possible.  A wife could not be held in a criminal action if she committed theft against her husband.  The various statements of the jurists make the matter clear.  Thus Paulus[79]:  “A special action for the recovery of property removed [rerum amotarum iudicium] has been introduced against her who was a wife, because it has been decided that it is not possible to bring a criminal action for theft against her [quid non placuit cum ea furti agere posse].  Some—­as Nerva Cassius—­think she cannot even commit theft, on the ground that the partnership in life made her mistress, as it were.  Others—­like Sabinus and Proculus—­hold that the wife can commit theft, just as a daughter may against her father, but that there can be no criminal action by established law.”  “As a mark of respect to the married state, an action involving disgrace for the wife is refused."[80] “Therefore she will be held for theft if she touches the same things after being divorced.  So, too, if her slave commits theft, we can sue her on the charge.  But it is possible to bring an action for theft even against a wife, if she has stolen from him whose heirs we are or before she married us; nevertheless, as a mark of respect we say that in each case a formal claim for restitution alone is admissible, but not an action for theft."[81] “If any one lends help or advice to a wife who is filching the property of her husband, he shall be held for theft.  If he commits theft with her, he shall be held for theft, although the woman herself is not held."[82]

A husband who did not avenge the murder of his wife lost all claims to her dowry, which was then confiscated to the state; this by order of the Emperor Severus.[83]