The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-01-03
RIGHTS OF A WIFE DEFINED.
May Ask Damages for an En-
ticed-Away Husband.
The Marital Story of Mr.. and Mrs.
Edwin Harvey.
Alleged Schemes aud Plots Which May
Cost q Family Much Money Be-
fore the Matter IL Settled.

JuuRe onAW yesterday oVefruieu bne
demurrer in the suit of Mary A. Har-
vey against @. W. Harvey and Lucy
Jane Harvey.
Mrs. Mary A. Harvey is a married
woman. the wife of Elvin Harvey, and
has resided separate from him since he
deserted her in 1892. The causes which
led her to bring an action against G.
w. and L. ]. Harvey are given at length
in her complaint, which reads very
much like lin de siecle novel.
| Edwin Harvey, according to this docu.
ment, was reared by the defendants
from his childhood days and treated by
them as son. They greatly influenced
his actions in every way OF life, with the
exception of one. That was his mar
rage to the plaintiff on Dscemh or 26,
1876. which occurred with out the con-
sent OF bis adaptive parents. From
this union there sprang six children,
the oldest of which is now over 16 and
the youngest over 4.
The welded life OF Mr.. and Mrs. Ell
win Harvev renamed happy and cloud
less until February, 1892, when a storm
burst over the matrimonial Eden, where
the Harvey family resided, and how
! this came to happen the plaintiff ex-
plains thus:
The defendants, Mr.. and Mrs. G. W.
Harvey, had daughter named Emma
L., who, prior to 1892, was married to
+. S. S Elder, party probably born
with that tired feeling" and failed to
support his wife. The marriage having
turned out unfortunately, Mrs. Elder
lost no time in praying the courts for q
divorce, which was granted her in Feb-
ruary OF 1892
The accusations made by Mrs. Mary
A. Harvey against the defendants here
assume very definite shape. She
elaine that even prior to Mrs. Elders
divorce from her bus band, Mr.. and Mrs.
Q. W. Harvey sought to throw Edwin
and their daughter Emma into each
others society, and that this kind OF
conduct was kept up after the decree
had been obtained. By the influence of
the defendants Edwin conceived a VIC.
lent affection for the ex.Mrs. Elder.
which was reciprocated by the lady.
But the defendant went further, Mrs.
Mary A. Harvey AYERS. They had con-
ceived scheme by which Mrs. Elder
was to be freed from her husband. Now
they prepared a plan by which Edwin
might get divorced from his wife, all
THE so that the loving couple could
marry together. Henceforth Edwin
neglected his wife and family and spent
his time in the company of Mrs Elder.
The abandoned wife WAS approached for
the purpose of giving her consent to
divorce proceedings by default, but she
scorned the proposal and has steadfastly
refused to become a party to any euch
action.
In consequence OF all the wrongs in
flcted upon Der by G. W. and Lucy
Jane Harvey, the distress suffered by
her in body and mind, the expense she
had been put to trying to recover here
recreant husband from Mrs. Elder and
the defendants. Mrs. Mary A. Harvey
asked the court to award her $4,000
damages and her costa.
The defendants demurred to the COM
plant on the ground that it did not
state facts sufficient to constitute u cause
of action.
Judge Shaw, in department five, hand.
ed down his written ruling in the case
yesterday. The claim of defendants
wac, he says, that under the provisions
of the code such action could not be
maintained by wife. In the case of
Crandall against Thompson. a similar
action, in an opinion rendered October
9th, Judge Van Dyke of department
four had decided for the wife. The
court concurred in the conclusions of
that opinion.
Commenting on the rights OF personal
relation, Judge Shaw said that the frs:
clause of section 40 of the civil code
forbade tine abduction o. husband
from HE wife, but the second clause
forbade the abduction and enticement
OF wife from her husband. 1t was
argued that as this does not forbid the
enticsment of husband from his wife,
but only his abduction. it must be in
ferred that the enticement OF husband
from his wife ia not forbidden, and is
lawful, or at least that it is not such
wrong az gives right of action.
But basing itself upon decisions OF the
supreme court in reference to the use of
liberal construction in the case OF the
am biguous or doubtful wording of sec
tons of the code, or the susceptibility
Of Interpretation that may occasionally
arise in them, the court holds that
where the code for bids the abduction OF
husband from his wife, and also the
abduction and enticement of a wife
from her husband, and does not ex-
presaly either forbid or allow the entic-
ing away OF husband from his wife. it
should not be inferred therefrom that
the legislature intended to allow such
an act nor to make it lawful.
The defendants will now have 10 days
in which to file their answer.