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: 76
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
76 HANRICK v. DODD. [Austin Term,
Statement of the case.
APPEAL from Williamson. Tried below before D. W. Doom,
Esq., Special Judge.
This case involved the validity of the same grant to eleven
leagues of land situated in the colony of Austin & Williams (now
in Williamson county) which was involved in the case of IHanrick v.
Cavanaugh, 60 Tex., 1. Reference is made to the very lengthy
statement deemed necessary in that case for a more clear understanding
of this. The appellant relied on the protocol or act of possession
of a grant for eleven leagues of land to Rafael de Aguirre.
In this case Dodd, the defendant, claimed one hundred and sixty
acres of the land alleged to be covered by the grant, under a preemption
claim, originating on the 14th day of September, 1874.
The defense was forgery of the grant, which it was urged consisted
not in the forgery of the name of Lesassier, the officer who signed
the grant, or of his assisting witnesses, but in changing the name of
the grantee in the protocol and the description of the land granted,
as well as the reference in the grant to the date of the concession
by virtue of which the title was extended. These changes, it was
claimed by the defendant, were made by erasing words and letters
and parts of words, and substituting others, without revealing the
erased words and invalidating them in the notes of emendation before
the grant was signed. The words changed were noted by
validating the new word, but the old words were not named in the
foot-notes, or revealed and invalidated in terms.
The forgery charged was of the protocol or matrix of· the grant,
and not of the testimonio, which was not in evidence. It was contended
by the defendant that the title, when issued, was a grant to
one Perfecto Valdez, whose name still appeared in the grant in the
habendurr clause, and to whom a concession had issued on the 13th
day of July, 1830. That the name of Perfecto Valdez had been
erased in the granting clause, and that of Rafael de Aguirre inserted,
letters and parts of letters of the original name beinrr preserved.
The date of the concession to Aguirre was the 14th of June, 1830,
and it was contended that the grant showed on its face a change in
the reference to the concession in which it issued from " 13th of
July" to " 14th of June."
Photographic copies of the grant were used on the trial, which
De Bray, the Spanish translator in the general land office, after inspecting,
stated revealed the alterations and changes as shown by
their original. His testimony, pointing out and showing those
changes as they appeared in the original, was objected to for the
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/m1/98/: accessed April 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .