AN ACT CONCERNING FORCIBLE ENTRIES AND UNLAWFUL DETAINERS. PASSED APRIL 22, 1850. The People of the State of California represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 1. No person or persons shall hereafter make any entry into lands, tenements, or other possessions, but in cases where entry is given by law, and in such cases, not with strong hand nor with multitude of people, but only in a peaceable manner; and if any person from henceforth do to the contrary, and thereof be duly convicted, he shall be punished by fine. 1. When a party of four or five men enter a building occupied by another, in the night time, during the hours of sleep, and take possession, and avow their intention to keep possession, and actually do so, it is sufficient evidence of force to maintain this action.-Scarlett v. Lamarque, 5 Cal., 63. 2. To sustain this action, actual force, threats of violence, or just apprehension of violence to person, must be shown to have existed, unless the detainer be riotous.— Frazier v. Hanlon, 5 Cal., 156; Willard v. Warren, 17 Wend., 257. 3. Facts amounting to a mere trespass, are not sufficient to maintain this action.— Frazier v. Hanlon, 5 Cal., 156. 4. This act is in derogation of the common law, and must be strictly construed.House v. Keiser, 7 Cal., Oct. T. 2. Any justice of the peace shall have authority to inquire, as hereinafter directed, as well against those who make unlawful or forcible entry into lands, tenements, or other possessions, and detain the same, as against those who, having lawful and peaceful entry into lands, tenements, or other possessions, unlawfully detain the same; and if it be found, upon such inquiry, that an unlawful or forcible entry hath been made, and that the said lands, tenements, or other possessions, after a lawful entry, are held unlawfully, then such justice shall cause the party complaining to have restitution thereof. 1. The recorder of the city of Sacramento has no jurisdiction in these cases.-Cronise v. Carghill, 4 Cal., 120. 2. In this action the holding over the land is the foundation of the action, and must be proven.-Reed v. Grant, 4 Cal., 176. 3. A description of the land sufficiently definite to enable the administration of substantial justice, is all that is required.-Hernandez v. Simon, 4 Cal., 182. 4. This action is a summary proceeding provided by statute, and does not belong to the district courts, by virtue of their constitutional jurisdiction.-Ramirez v. Murray, 4 Cal., 293; Townsend v. Brooks, 5 Cal., 52. 5. A landlord cannot maintain this action in his own name for an unlawful entry upon the possession of his tenant.-Treat v. Stuart, 5 Cal., 113. 6. This statute provides a remedy for unlawful as well as forcible entry, and its policy is doubtless to avoid nice distinctions as to what constitutes force.-Moore v. Goslin, 5 Cal., 266. 7. The jurisdiction vested in justices' courts to try these cases is not unconstitutional.-O'Callaghan v. Booth, 6 Cal., 63; Hart v. Moon, ib., 161. 8. In an action for holding over after the expiration of the term, three days' notice is all that is required.-Garbrell v. Fitch, ib., 189. 9. The jurisdiction of the justices in these cases arises from the quasi criminal nature thereof, and falls under the head of "special cases," as used in the constitution.Small v. Gwinn, ib., 447. 3. When any complaint shall be made in writing to any justice of 182 said justice shall issue a summons, directed to the sheriff or any conthe peace, of any such unlawful or forcible entry, or unlawful detainer, isluhned, stable of the county, commanding him to summon the person or pe” sons against whom such complaint shall have been made, to appear l fore the said justice on a day in such summons named, which shall 1 be less than on days from the day of issuing the summons, and at t place therein mentioned. 1. A tenant in common cannot sustain an action of forcible entry and detainer against his co-tenant for holding over. The land must first be partitioned.-Lick v. O'Donnell, 3 Cal., 59. 2. The statute does not require an allegation of possession by the plaintiff; this objection is at most only subject to demurrer,-Cronise v. Carghill, 4 Cal., 120. 3. The rule that a penal statute must be declared upon by the party seeking recov ery under it, does not apply to pleadings in justices' courts.-O'Callaghan v. Booth, 6 Cal., 63, |