either the plaintiff or her husband were in any way materially injured. The $15 tent was the cause of all the trouble. As Harper had been in possession of the house for over three years, and long before the purchase of the same by the Masons, he was doubtless the owner of the tent and he had a perfect right to remove it. He offered evidence to show his ownership and to show that he had retained the keys and had not given up possession of the tenement. He offered evidence to show that pending his suit for possession he had deposited in the Bank of Enderlin $22.50 as rent of the house to July 13, 1919, and that when the Masons prevailed in the suit they took from the bank the $22.50 and refused to refund the same or any part of it. The court refused to permit the evidence. That was error. In taking surreptitious possession of the tenement and in refusing to give up the tent and claiming it as a part of the realty, and in taking the money deposited for rent to July 13, 1919, the Masons were clearly wrongdoers and aggressors and there is no use to say that Harper had a perfect remedy by an action of repievin, as such an action would have cost the full value of the tent. The question being one of exemplary damages, it was clearly proper for Harper to show that he owned the tent and had a right to remove it. If the Masons by their conduct directly provoked and caused the wrong of which they complain, there is no reason why they should recover punitory damages. Indeed, their right to actual damages against either of the defendants is a question of grave doubt.
Now let us consider the liability of each defendant. Moran was chief of police, and in making the arrest without a warrant and then making the complaint and serving the warrant he did just what policemen are doing every day. Whether right or wrong, he acted officially, and the presumption is that he acted in good faith.
Harper is in no way liable. He was no party to the arrest. There is no evidence of a conspiracy, as charged in the complaint.
Mr. Underwood, the police magistrate, issued the warrant against the defendants on a complaint which he himself held bad on demurrer. His action was purely judicial. That is shown by the complaint, the docket, and the testimony of the magistrate.
The case is quite similar to the recent case decided by this court. Landseidel v. Culeman, 181 N. W. 593. In that case the defendants appealed from a joint verdict and judgment against them for $4,000.
Culeman claimed that he merely acted as a justice of the peace. By a
