What is the test for a claim in a sexual assault case?

And later on the same page he says:—’ “In Mulholland v. Misener, the statement of claim was founded entirely on the debauchment of the plaintiff’s wife, whereby he was deprived of her society. Here there were two distinct causes of action, in one of which the plaintiff may succeed without any proof of any guilty intimacy on the part of the defendant.”

And in Bailey v. King, 27 Ont. App. 703, Armour, C.J., at p. 713, lays down the following:— “The cause of action for enticing away is essentially different from the cause of action for criminal conversation with a wife. The former is brought, on the assumption of the wife’s innocence, for the purpose of procuring her return to her husband, and for damages for his temporary loss of consortium, and every day she is procured by her enticer to remain away from her husband a new tort is committed by the enticer.”