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: 88

                                
88                   IHANRIClK v. DODD.        [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
dated be shown, but also the words abandoned and made void.
Escriche&s Dic. Leg. Ins., pp. 886-888; Hanrick v. Cavanaugh, 60
Tex., 1.
This rule was applicable not only to testimonies, but also to the
matrix or protocol. If one appears to be changed, or if suspicion
is cast on it, by reason of erasures or interlineations, its verity may
be shown by the production of the other. It is said: "If the
original copy or testimonio is in existence, the fact of the reproduction
or omission of words written or added may assist to ascertain
whether the alteration was made before or after the closing and
signing of the principal document (or matrix) and consequently it
will be possible to decide whether there was fraud or a mere omission."
Id., page 888.
In this case it appears that the part of the matrix which would
have made the Perfecto Valdez title complete has been changed, so
that there is no final title to that grant, but there are two final titles
under the Rafael de Aguirre concession to separate eleven leagues.
Notwithstanding this, and the further fact that the matrix of the
title in controversy (which is claimed to be the second one to
Aguirre on the same concession) is attacked as a forgery, the original
copy or testimonio is not produced. It is not shown to have
ever existed, nor that it is lost or destroyed, nor is it otherwise
accounted for. If it had been produced, and appeared not to be
altered (and it probably would not have been if it was a true copy
of a genuine original), it would be conclusive that the matrix now
attacked was altered before and not after its execution. As early as
the year 1838 the dues were paid to the republic of Texas, and credited
upon a certified copy of the title from the land office, and not
upon a testimonio, as was customary.
That Samuel M. Williams would apply to the alcalde, L. Lesassier,
for the extension of title and possession to two separate eleven-league
grants, on the same day, by virtue of the same concession for one
only, in open violation of law, does not seem reasonable. And if
he had done so, that the officer of the government, assisted by the
same two witnesses, would grant it, and extend titles to both, seems
less probable. That the owners of the Perfecto Valdez concession
would expend so much time and money in procuring a concession,.
and a survey under it, for nearly fifty thousand acres of land in a
solid body, and abandon it, when only a small effort and outlay
was necessary to procure final title, is difficult to appreciate and
realize in the absence of explanation. The alcalde, L. Lesassier, does
not seem to have had any motive or interest in granting twenty-two