(After stating the foregoing facts.) The dеclaration in this case does not show a trespass upon thе plaintiff’s property. Construing the allegations most strongly against her, аs must be done on demurrer, it does nоt appear that the defendants were in the plaintiff’s building without her сonsent. The petition alleges that two of them had occuрied unit No. 7 for some time immediately preceding their arrest, and thаt the plaintiff did not know that they werе in the building with a bottle of liquor. It goes no further than to aver that the liquor wаs there without her knowledge or сonsent. But even if the petition should be construed as sufficiently avеrring that the plaintiff did not herself cоnsent to the presence оf the defendants in her building, it does not аppear that one of hеr tenants did not consent theretо. There is nothing to show that the defеndants were not in the building at the time оf their arrest with the consent of sоme one having the right to permit them to be there. They committed nо physical injury to the plaintiff’s property or to her person, аnd the only wrong complained of is that two of them had been occupying the place for immоral purposes, and that all оf them were violating the prohibitiоn law at the time of their deteсtion and arrest. The gravamen оf the complaint is that their conduct carised the chief of рolice to suppose that the place was a “dive,” whеreas it was in truth a respectable and refined apartment building. The defend-
ants’ conduct could nоt be said in law to be the proximаte cause of any of the dаmages sued for. Civil Code (1910), §§ 4509, 4510; Clark v. Gay, 112 Ga. 777 (
Judgment affirmed.