Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/148

 was entered into wherein the defendant Harper agreed that he would vacate and surrender possession to the plaintiffs on or before June 21st, in which event the justice was authorized to enter a dismissal of the action without costs to either party. And, in the event of the failure of the defendant to surrender possession, as agreed, it was stipulated that the usual judgment in forcible entry and detainer might be entered against the defendant on Monday, June 23d, at 9 a. m., to which time the action was continued for the purpose stated in the stipulation. Harper vacated the premises on the 21st and on Monday, plaintiff not appearing, Harper’s attorney secured the entry of the judgment of dismissal without costs in accordance with the stipulation. In the proceedings in justice court Harper was represented by the defendant Underwood, who was the police magistrate of the city of Enderlin, and who at various times acted as attorney for individuals in justice court. Harper did not surrender the keys. He had deposited some money in the bank to the credit of the plaintiff which he claimed paid the rent until July 13th. This money was received by the plaintiff or her husband as her agent. The Masons took possession of the property, gaining entrance to the house through a window, and they promptly moved in with their household effects. Harper had left upon the premises a small tent worth about $15 or $16. It stood near the house, had a floor in it, and was connected with the house by electric wires. After the Masons were in possession of the premises, Harper instructed a drayman to move the tent, but the latter was unable to do so, as the Masons would not permit it. Upon being advised of this fact by the drayman, Harper, meeting Underwood on the street, told him that the Masons refused to allow him to take the tent, whereupon Underwood suggested that when they would go again for the tent they should take the chief of police, Moran, the other defendant in this action; that he thought in this event there would be no trouble. Thereafter, on June 27th, the chief of police accompanied the drayman to the Mason home, arriving there about 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Mason, who was working nights as a switchman, was upstairs asleep, but Mrs. Mason, the plaintiff in this action, was there and requested them not to take the tent unless they had papers authorizing them to take it. The defendant Moran exhibited his policeman’s star and stated in substance that that was as good as papers and that he would either take the tent or take Mr. Mason. The plaintiff, becoming shocked at his attitude, ran into the house crying. Moran followed her and went upstairs, where