Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 129

1875,1 CLARK v. THOMPSON. 129
Opinion of the court.
matter for our determination. It is our duty simply to observe
and follow the law as we find it.
On the 6th of January, 1873, a petition for writ of error
was filed by Clark, the defendant, in the District Court,
praying that the plaintiffs be cited to appear in the Supreme
Court, to be begun and holden on the third Monday in
December, 1873. A supersedeas bond was at the same
time given to the plaintiffs, and a citation in accordance
with the petition in error issued, and was served upon W.
S. Thompson. Next follows in the transcript an assignment
of errors, which appears to have been filed January
21st, 1873. Then comes a second petition in error, filed
December 31st, 1873, referring to the first petition, and
stating that by mistake the plaintiffs were cited to appear
at a term of the Supreme Court to be begun and holden
on the third Monday in December, 1873, wherefore petitioner
prays for an alias citation to the plaintiffs to appear
at a term of the Supreme Coulrt to be begun and
holden on the first Monday in December, 1874. Following
this petition is a citation, which was also served on W.
S. Thompson, requiring him to appear at a term of the
Supreme Court to be holden on the - day of , A.
D. 1874.
The assignment of errors is on the 24th page of the transcript.
The second petition in error, citation, and service extended
it to twenty-eight pages; and on the 29th page we
find the certificate of the clerk, of the date of the 20th day
of January, 1873, in which he certifies that the foregoing
twenty-eight-the eight being evidently written over some
other word, apparently four-contains a full and perfect
transcript of all the proceedings had in the cause. Nor
can it be supposed that, by a clerical mistake, the certificate
bears date of January, 20th, 1873, when it should have been
January 20th, 1874, for the transcript was filed in this
court January 12th, 1874. It is therefore evident that the
petition for alias citation in error, and the citation and
9