Action by Married Woman—Enticing Away Husband.—A married woman, whose husband has deserted her, may maintain an action in her own name for damages against another woman who has alienated her husband’s affections, and enticed and abducted him from her, with intent to deprive her of his companionship, assistance, and support.

Id.—Parties—Desertion by Husband—Construction op Code.—Section 370 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes a married woman to sue alone, without joining her husband as a party, “when she is living separate and apart from her husband, by reason of his desertion of her,” is to be construed together with section 95 of the Civil Code, defining willful desertion; but it is not necessary that the desertion must have continued for the statutory period entitling the wife to a divorce, in order to enable her to sue in her own name.

Id.—“Abduction” op Husband—Persuasion and Enticement.—Section 49 of the Civil Code, forbidding “the abduction of a husband from his wife,” and “the abduction or enticement of a wife from a husband,” is not to be construed as limiting the wife to an action where her husband has been forcibly taken from her, or as conferring a more favorable rieht of action upon the husband than upon the wife. The “abduction,” in either case, may be accomplished by persuasion or enticement; and the section confers upon the wife a right of action against another woman for alienating her husband’s affections and enticing him away from her.

Id.—Damages—Community Property.—The question whether the damages recovered by the wife would or would not be community property cannot affect the right of the wife to sue in her own name, when expressly given both a right of action and a remedy in her own name by the provisions of the code.

Id.—Gist of Action—Pleading—Certainty.-*-The gist of the action by the wife is the enticing or taking away of her husband, and alienating his affections, and although a complaint alleging such gist ought also to state with some certainty during what period of time the enticements of the defendant were brought to bear upon the husband, yet the failure so to do, though specially demurred to, is not ground for dismissing the action, without leave to amend; but the plaintiff would be entitled, under such complaint, to prove' that the conduct of the defendant began while her husband was living with her, prior to his alleged desertion of her, and that defendant enticed him away from the plaintiff,