Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during Austin term, 1854, and a part of Galveston term 1855. Volume 13. Page: 18
viii, 382 p. ; 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
35-36 SUPREME COURT.
Townsend v. Moore.
'master or mistress," as descriptive of the owner; and yet it will not be denied
that the consent of the latter would protect the purchaser, though the owner
had an overseer employed having charge of his negroes; and the master or
mistress, as descriptive of thc owner for the time, could not be said properly to
have charge of the negroes. It is obvious, therefore, that the words substituted
in the indictment for those employed in the statute may be variously used with
a more extended or more limited signification. They have not a precise and
[35] certain meaning equivalent to that of the words used in the statute; nor
can theiy be said certainly and invariably to have a more extensive signification
than those words and to include them. They do not, therefore, come within the
rule which, we have seen, must be observed where other words are substituted
by the pleader for those employed in the statute creating and defining the
offense. When the -tatute is thus explicit in designating the particular person
whose consent nnut be obtained to protect him who deals with a slave, it would
be unsafe to sanction any material departure from or the employment of any
substitute for the words used as intended. In such a case especially it is much
safer to pursue strictly the words of the statute, as no others can so properly
describe the offense, and as it precludes all question about the meaning of the
expressions used, and because a departure from the statute in any material
respect, the omission to state all the circumstances which constitute the definitionl
of the offense with certainty and precision, so as to bring the defendant
precisely within it, will vitiate the indictment. We are of opinion that the Court
did not err in sustaining the motion to quash the indictment, and that the judgment
be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
NOTE 10.-The State v. McClure, ante 23
[36] TOWNSEND V. MOORE.
JUDGMENT BY CONSENT.--Wher the parties having been defendants, but of adverse interests in
asuit that had been compromised with the plaintiffs to obviate further litigation, agreed
that their attorneys should decide upon and make an adjustment of their respective rights,
and in case their attorneys could not agree, that they should appoint an umpire, and the
attorneys not agreeing, did appoint an umpire. whose decision, in the shape of a written
opinion, together with the agreement signed by the attorneys of record of tlhe parties,
and a decree in accordance with the opinion given, was filed in the case, and on the next
day was imade tie judgment of tle Court witlfout objection, the judgment was held not to
'be a judgment upon an award, but by consent, and, therefore, a waiver of errors. (Note 11.)
Error from Travis.
Hamilton and Walton, for plaintiff in error.
Webb and Oldham, for defendant in error.
WHEELER, J. The record discloses that, in order to a speedy adjustment
of the rights of these parties, growing out of the suit pending, against them by
Luckett, with whom they had compromised, and to obviate the necessity of
further litigation, it was agreed that their attorneys should decide upon and
make an adjustment of their respective rights; and in case of.their inability to
agree they should call in an umpire. They, not agreeing, did choose an umpire
who gave his opinion in writing. This opinion, together.with the agreement
signed by the attorneys of record of the parties, and a "decree," in
accordance with the opinion given, was filed in the case; and on the next day
was made the judgment of the Court without objection. More than a yeat
afterwards this writ of error was prosecuted.
We do not regard the present as a judgment rendered upon an award. We
18
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during Austin term, 1854, and a part of Galveston term 1855. Volume 13., book, 1876; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28561/m1/26/: accessed March 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .