Edwards

The complaint stated a cause of action in forcible detainer. The trial court in its decision of the case found that on or about December 17, 1912, the defendant unlawfully and, forcibly entered upon the described premises. The complaint alleged an unlawful entry during the absence of the plaintiff, but did not allege a forcible entry. The complaint also alleged, and the court found it to he a fact, that on said seventeenth day of December the plaintiff made demand in writing upon the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff the possession of said premises, and that the defendant refused for a period of five days thereafter to surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff; the court did not find that the entry was made during the absence of the plaintiff, but that fact was not denied.

Forcible entry is defined as follows (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1159): “Every person is guilty of a forcible entry who either—

[1] There is no evidence to show that defendant’s entry upon the premises on the seventeenth day of December, 1912, was accompanied by any kind of violence or circumstance of terror, or that the defendant turned out by force, threats, or menacing conduct the party in possession. It…