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: 77
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
S884.] ItANRICK . DODD. T
Statement of the case.
1. The changes are in writing.
2. The changes, whatever they may be, are manifest to the jury
on an inspection of the photographs, as much so as they are to the
3. It is not competent for the witness to explain orally to the
jury what he may see, or think he sees, the jury being as able to
see as he is.
4. The paper fully explains itself.
5. If there be a defect in the paper, it is latent, and cannot be
explained save by appealing to the whole instrument--not only
of the final title itself, but to the preceding parts on which the final
title is founded.
The objections were overruled, and the witness De Bray testified
in regard to those alleged changes.
His testimony was, in the main, about as detailed in Hanrick v.
Cavanaugh, 60 Tex., 1.
With a copy of the protocol in his hand, CoL .De Bray pointed
out the erasures, substitutions, interlineations and emendations, and
how they were made, and what sort of pen and ink he thought was
used. He said the whole instrument, including the alterations and
foot-notes, was in Samuel M. Williams' handwriting, but the last four
words, "tambien, tambien, Junio, Junio," were a little cramped,
and did not resemble the bold handwriting of Samuel M. Williams.
That the alterations were all noted by mentioning the substituted
words above the signatures of the alcalde and assisting witnesses,
He held in his hand two photographic copies of the last page of
the protocol, both taken from the same negative under his supervision.
In one of these copies the four lines of foot-notes at the
bottom of the protocol had been rubbed out; in the other they had
not been interfered with. He said that the one with the foot-notes
in it represented the usual space that Lesassier, in signing his titles,
left between the last line of the writing and his signature, but the
one with the foot-notes rubbed out showed double the space usually
left by him between the last line of the writing and his signature,
and considerably greater space than he ever saw'in any title in the
general land office issued by Lesassier. That he had examined Lesassier's
titles in the land office, to see if any of them had so g;eat
a distance between the Writing and signature as would be in our
title with the foot-notes erased, and he did not find one. He also
exhibited a photographic copy of the last page of the Thomas de la
Vega title, which was also made under his direction, and said it was
a fair specimen of the last page of Lesassier's title. He stated that
Here’s what’s next.
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. 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/m1/99/: accessed August 17, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .