Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/152

 in June, 1919, in the city of Enderlin, the plaintiff and her husband were taken in a car and put in the Enderlin jail by the chief of police. Then he made complaint on which Mr. Underwood, the police magistrate, issued a warrant against them, and discharged them because the complaint did not state a cause of action. The result was two actions against the defendants for false imprisonment. Her verdict was $4,000; his, $1,200.

Some two years before the arrest the Masons had traded some property for the house and lot on which Harper and his family had resided for over three years and on which he had a tent worth about $15. The Masons served on Harper notice to quit the premises and had a suit to obtain possession. That was on June 21, 1919. Harper claimed the right to hold possession until July 13th and that in payment of rent until then he had deposited in the Bank of Enderlin $22.50. The suit went against Harper. Then the Masons took the $22.50 which Harper had deposited to their credit and refused to refund it. Hence Harper refused to deliver possession of the house which he left and retained the keys. In removing he neglected to take the tent. The Masons stealthily took possession by opening a window and then they claimed the tent as a part of the realty because it was fastened to the earth by stakes to prevent it blowing away. Harper hired a dray to go and take the tent, and at his request, Moran, the chief of police, went with the dray. The Masons persisted in holding the tent. He said to her: “Old girl, hold the tent.” The chief of police took them into his car and put them in jail and made a complaint on which the police magistrate issued a warrant for the arrest of the Masons. The complaint was under a supposed city ordinance. The charge was that on June 27, 1919, in the city of Enderlin, the defendants did commit the crime of being disorderly and of disorderly conduct within the city of Enderlin, and that the defendants did wrongfully and with malice aforethought threaten and interfere with the person of complainant, the chief of police, contrary to the provisions of the ordinance of the city of Enderlin. Pending the hearing of a demurrer to the complaint, she was released without any bail. He was released on a deposit of a check for $75. After argument it was adjudged that the demurrer be sustained and the defendants discharged.

Mr. Underwood, the magistrate, is the only party in any way responsible. The others have no property; they are execution proof. The verdict is almost entirely for punitory damages. There can be no just claim that