Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 78
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
78 HANRICI v. DODD. [Austin Term,
Statement of the case.
it had the same space between the writing and Lesassier's signature
that this title had with the foot-notes in it, and double the distance
it had with the foot-notes rubbed out.
The record, among much other evidence, showed:
1. Two final titles to Rafael de Aguirre (if the one relied on by
appellant was genuine) to different eleven leagues of land, on one
and the same concession, each signed by the same assisting witness,
and extended by the same alcalde, Lesassier.
2. The survey of the eleven leagues in controversy was without
3. The first title extended was for eleven leagues on the BPrazos
river, and dated October 4, 1833; the second title was for ten
leagues in controversy on the San Gabriel and one league elsewhere,
and dated eighteen days afterwards, October 22, 1833.
4. The title in controversy was in the handwriting of Samuel MI.
Williams, one of the company of Austin & Williams, colonial empresarios
(except the last words "tanbien Junio-Junio Valen"), who
acted under what was claimed an irrevocable power of attorney, in
which Aguirre renounced to him all his rights and interests.
5. Williams, as such attorney and party in interest, applied, if the
title be genuine, to the alcalde at San Felipe de Austin, October 4,
1833, for title of possession to the eleven leagues in controversy on
the San Gabriel, as the title now reads, and on the same day of the
same year he applied on a copy of the same concession to the same
alcalde of San Felipe de Austin (Lesassier) for the eleven leagues
for the same Aguirre on the Brazos river, title to which was issued
the same day (October 4, 1833).
A Spanish copy of the protocol, recorded in Milam county in
1838, containing the words of the protocol of the Williamson
county land as they now appear (except the last four lines, which
are written in words which it was claimed validated the apparent
alterations of the original), was read in evidence.
It was claimed by appellant, that, no matter whether the alterations
in the protocol were made according to law or not, they would
not affect the legality of the title as a title to Aguirre, contending
that the question of legality of the change could not be raised in
this case, and was foreign to the issue of forgery.
In 1830 Perfecto Valdez obtained a concession for eleven leagues
of land, and with the permission of the empresario it was surveyed
on the east bank of the Brazos river. The theory of the appellant,
in accounting for the changes apparent on the face of the grant,
was as follows: That Saml. M. Williams, the empresario, who
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/100/: accessed May 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .