Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during December term, 1846, and a part of December term, 1847. Volume 1. Page: 381

                                
COCKE' . CALKIN & Co.                541-542
pay the debt; and had the creditor refused to receive it on his proving
when sued that the price was a fair cash price, it would have been
a full defense to the action. It could have been of no importance
whatever on the trial of the cause in the court below to prove that the
debtor had placed a fair price on the oxen without having first shown
that they had been designated and set apart. If this had been done
and the jury should have believed from the evidence that the price
was not fair, but much above cash valuation, their verdict ought to have
been for the amount in money. This would be the legal effect of the
note. We would not have felt authorized to set aside the verdict in
this case if the tender had been proved, because it was still left with
the jury to say whether the tender of the property was accompanied
by a fair cash estimate of the value. And there being but two witnesses,
and they differing so widely, it was [541] the province of the
jury and not the court to weigh the testimony. We therefore believe
there was no error in the refusal to grant a new trial, and the judgment
is affirmed.
[542] JAMTES   . CocKE v. E. P. CALKIN & Co. - Writ of Error from
Galveston County.
The laws of the republic of Texas regulating imposts existed in full force until the
16th day of February, 1846, and all importations previous to that period were
chargeable with duties in accordance with those laws.
Until the organization of the state government on the 16th of February, 1846, the
government and laws of the republic of Texas continued in force to exclusion of
the constitution and laws of the United States, and of every portion of the state
constitution itself, of which a previous enforcement was not enjoined. [Overruled,
21 Tex. 577.]
The record in this case shows, that on the 30th day of January,
1846, tle defendants in error brought into the city of Galveston from
the city of New Orleans a quantity of merchandise, the original cost
of which was about $4,500, principally the growth and manufacture
of the United States; that James 1H. Cocke, the plaintiff in error,
claiming to act as collector of the customs at Galveston, under the
laws of the republic of Texas, seized and took into his possession the
whole of said merchandise for the non-payment of the duties which,
he alleged to be due thereon under the laws aforesaid. The defendant
in error protested against this act in due form of law as being in
violation of the constitution of the United States, of the act of congress
of the United States of the 31st of Decrmber, 1845, and
(381)