Husband and Wipe—Deed to Wipe—Presumption op Separate Property—Community Property.—Under section 164 of the Civil Code, as that section has read since the year 1897, a deed to a married woman raises the presumption that the title to the property conveyed vested in her as her separate property. This presumption is not conclusive, and may be overcome by evidence showing that the property, although conveyed to the wife, was in fact community property.

Id.—Presumption is Evidence—Weight and Sufficiency op Evidence. Such presumption, although disputable, is itself evidence, and it is for the trial court to say whether the evidence offered to overcome it has sufficient' weight to effect that purpose. In the present case, the conclusion of the trial court that the property in question was the separate property of the wife is held sustained by the evidence.

Id.—Application op Separate Property por Family Expenses.— There is no presumption that the wife applied her separate property, rather than that of the community, in paying the living expenses of the family.

Id.—Action to Charge Land as Community Property—Evidence op Wipe as to Intent.—In an action by a husband to charge as community property land which had been deeded to his wife and subsequently conveyed by her, the refusal of the court to allow the wife to testify that she and her husband did not intend that various parcels of land held in her name during the marriage should be heir separate property, is without prejudice, where her testimony showed that she claimed to have taken title as the agent and business manager of her husband.

Ib.—Impeachment op Wipe—Declarations in Will.—In such action, declarations in a will made by the wife tending to show that she regarded the property in question as her separate property, are admissible on her cross-examination to impeach her testimony to the contrary.

Id.—Evidence as to Conversation—Entire Conversation may be Given.-—Where the wife, as a witness for the plaintiff, had been asked to testify to all the conversations she had with the defendant, the defendant, in response, was authorized to give his version of these conversations and to state all of them regarding the same subject matter.