In connection with the first assignment above noted, under the circumstances of this case the trial court was not required to take evidence before entering the default judgment, assuming the court was satisfied as to sufficiency of service and the fact that defendant was actually in default. In Feste v. The People, 93 Colo. 206, 25 P.2d 177, this court held that a defendant in an unlawful detainer action who failed to answer within the required time thereby admitted the allegations of the complaint. And, of course, allegations deemed admitted need not be proved.

The jury having been fully instructed as to the manner in which defendant's intoxication might be considered in returning their verdict, it was not error to refuse defendant's tendered instructions on the subject. Feste v. People, 93 Colo. 206, 25 P.2d 177; Todd v. People, 82 Colo. 541, 261 Pac. 661. [13, 14] We find no error in the court's refusal to grant a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.

[5] Defendant's final argument is that the county court has no jurisdiction to determine title or interest in land and that it was therefore error for the district court to determine that title was vested in the plaintiff on the basis of the default judgment entered in county court. A defendant in an unlawful detainer action who fails to answer within the required time thereby admits the allegations set forth in the complaint. Feste v. People, 93 Colo. 206, 25 P.2d 177. That rule is applicable in the present case. In the county court action, Spar Consolidated Mines Company alleged that it held title to the Big Chief Lode Mining Claim and that defendant Aasgaard was in unlawful possession.