Apart from the grammar point that Gary made about sentence number 1, (the 'to' in sentence number 1 changes the meaning quite significantly) they are okay grammatically, but your main question was 'Are they natural?' There's a sense with the phrase "I had someone do something for me" that the other person is working for you, either being paid or as some sort of servant. They are providing a service for you. Therefore sentence number 1 is quite odd culturally for most English speakers, because the relationship between wife and husband would normally be seen as equal. Therefore, we would normally say "Jane asked her husband to wash the car". Therefore sentences 2,3,4,7 &9 all sound natural, because someone is doing the task - and presumably being paid in return. Sentence 9 and 2 don't actually say who is doing the task, but it is sort of implied because of their passive nature. However, sentences 5 & 8 are questionable. We would need to know what the relationship is between Sally and Jane in example 5. And who are the 'them' in example 8. If 'Jane' and 'them' are employees then then you can use the phrase 'have them do', if not you'd need to change it. If you have read the above you may well be thinking that sentence 10 is a bit strange. The person who stole your wallet clearly doesn't work for you! But the passive nature of the sentence means that it is not important who stole it, but the fact that it was stolen. So yes, this sentence is 100% natural.

1 is incorrect. You don't use 'to'. The rest are good grammatically. 8 is not very natural - to me anyway. I would use 'get them to'. That may be a social difference: In my country where we like to think of ourselves as egalitarian, and less classed, we don't 'have people do things'.