The Texas Democrat (Austin, Tex.), Vol. 2, No. 4, Ed. 1, Wednesday, January 27, 1847 Page: 1 of 4
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
.
se
,.- rf ay ""
"S. FOBD & M. CROOTCAN,
-PUBLIC PRINTERS.
jJJRTtfS Pour Dollars' por annnm.rn advance
Sije Dars at thund of the year Np subscription
For Pilch Siltl-lrA nt-.r-n Imas nr ntiftpr ntiD frll-. 1"
for the litM. and fifty cents fur ear-h Bubseqn'enr In-
sruon. a aeijucunn nt rilty ppr conn iHT)ef mn
upon yearly "advrtiscmenls, with the privilege ,twc
new quarlLrly. '"''
Amouncing candidates, five dol'ars kvadVanp.
iCT All adver,t!prnpnt,ent from bryond thisconn-
ty. inn-l hi paid form advuipp.
iMttriess uiuu six monuis.
VOEDMEE
AUSTIN, TEXAS, EME83aI, IJSpgB 87, 1847
NUMBER 4.
WMMhMM " I " lg
l
fPPIN,IQN& DELIVERED BY .THE
-SUPREME COURT.
&
DECEMBER TERM, IS46.
w . 'r ""
C9
"i525tPbillin TTowarufAdmr of Gen. 1
jpGrih"rdPc1d,.fppHiant, vS ihp Repuh-
'Hie pf -Texas;, Appellee. -Erom Gonzales
-Coiu.lv. ; X "
! -flffiiV was acinl commnced-amder ihe
mMpicirJna of f hn 'nel nf 4jh' TVhriMrv
t4ie orioinallaw, bul which were restnci
if to rpcfnipniin acjiual bping, or exis-
je,nce at thp date pi the rjrant. .
Ljn? dnefjhc cJairh derive any more
jsolid cppnl fi;om the colonization laws
.orCna.iiii.atiiwl Texa. ft has bppu dp-
1F4 . ' . ml l 1. . !.-' : ,1 in!
ioK.Mjimi .... .i. . .M-.M ... ....,.,.... . . - -m-hih,.... :'4,' ..,". fi " nninwn n iip -hnnd hnfhre up; and on of the wa2"r. evidence micm op m-, Pctton to t .i k nd of proof. It cptjatu V
n.ao-,IPtPCl. fraudulent l ".fi.
. gainst &rl to ohtam from the GovPrn-nnd , no, nEalePiI. or " . . nal, wiihonf iIip, m ' "' ' J'.ac ma.le wiia vinw tha, ,h-. prlv i- rarIf,r' of A., .hr : purchaser. But no'uhieh any'well .rounded fear, could
.' rnWnt n ..priifiMio for one-lnnl of a he had been rcePiverl a a cf)!!:, v.in , Wn nrdr lj.wfn - "Tiie RuprcmP. wJUl' ' r , . ,. , '.. ,., ' ' , , ,u . . t i .
SK; "; '1nnfL Tl pplionPrairpl- ' m ,hn Hmh- "nnv r.flQnispl.Wmnirnrl. , S. in hp rI-M ;,hove.ifc:d,d .upereonPn, ,hW rp3.;lt ,rnm d.nVnhy of that character t cenrs tn the ni,.P. tha, a door w-tld be op,ned Uf-n
1'narWn.Pi; 1 "V tl'- w,s prnpPrlypjppd' in l.hp'fl,n ' .ent lw de.O.ult. in an action Wp.nrn iLpp : n the o.p:,on. that the ,Vr,on of ine precPnt nne tot,.- p; f.r frnml. No man woulu ever UuiH of
l"WTJnr aud-iiisfdPd hh7 an nndnrP nitt-s. an endor-r. was f pp! m.iM 1,p dt-pd jscvPral c,fl,,?3 of Charles, of Ann and ( h,br,c.,n2 a bnnk for the purpose, of
HTgiow.n.nu arniffttn texawininpj f:imo,t 5'. -af- ifinnl niiour thp inferventjon of a itirv. J . li: therefore cntdprpd. thai bpcan- of Cpore TI.,.hv which wagers on lorse palminjr a fjet t ous low upon the, cpurt.
rnnntKWDpcPnher, 1835. for-ifepnr-.J dgmenl beaffitmed. vsgT j hnjw, h q;;;;; J0 pnr4 ijhf apppn hpni, ?5 nnI wffit ipnJ. llllripr fJrjflc inPEnB1ai,l,rp placed umlPrcer- ThPrP would he , mny Uance, of.de-
Sf fl)P,frS r,a,,en,P,ift. j NeillforAnnelhnt. " J tVe-Stipreme Pnrtof Alabama, rfr M.ee faw, ,1 ,ih9 appl br.ed ,an .netioas. h:u'e not bceji introduce .Pc.ion. that the hope of sue, es.s uooJd
Sa,8ir-SlP?:,S"v..e?nl ,ani e'i"or.Aprellant1 . . 'P P i . 2a) .fL -tI jJjai heTr p-e ieWPr ,icots. "!rd into this country. . nor authorize the Mem??. At the; pwvC
'ftieii i v:.it ii r ,s .mm,in'rr t i ip npcP3pr! noi iiHVMfsr j rrivi-n ... . , . A rpi, rti0,inn pninraeeu .t . , . - - .. . , , . i
w--.--,"-r,.-i,i!ltyj.,.i:,.t'C"": "" . - --"i-i- . '.- NfcCo re-rT.-itWnv 3 St'U'rt a0 ni,.ft iui I13! Jne.nppeliee tewrr nt coi?. ; Pd into this country. .
.Eebpe td;t rPdercp nl bf ler.-on r ' ' ' .?. - . - derMons were bnspdifji - -."- LInC0MB, '. W;.oprs on hore racing were always
r tvREgpas lolled, by tbendniA-haf Hjrr Curlm. Appeal Irom Austin , lidnfpf1 nr. ;im thprP were no : pellee: Ai V- ' 4 common law. and now, when made in
? Psa reprecentattve, are eoitu.u 10 . - - d:nfln fn br ;jWl?Pd hy theory. Ac- .. . . t . eonfbrmity with the provisions of the
- un-..m..... .-.!t.-"'.'' ""-- .. 4 " ' pordino- lo the Uinfflili aiitiionnes m .n 4.33i fnhPri Diinman. -Apppnanf, vs. i nbove tainp, ihey are conssdered vaiKJ
- - ifpj i!ir-a rlrmurrer was Bird foMhedPon ofa-jury. - ilIl!ffnipBfc: by default was Wnlpr gother, nee, fcc-From H,trfi,.! rnn,rnV,c. .
. fn'bPhalf ofe Repnbhe and tt was On thp pvlIpppp nbm.. ed V final, r PhVpw. vs. - Pelturrew. 1 rnnnl '.. ThPre Wno sta.ntP m thi, country for-
,mbWAf - CnnM The que.tton wac found ,n Javor of ihg plamt.rT, , the Qfnnrt ftqoo whw lllPpnsli hnuthonM. TKi, WS hron;,ir ofJ-n-wrhipn1 Wrnn WPr5 on hor.e races, and the
- .fcrniicjjptfipn i. waeorar; CrPih pn- coor Mvlow . i-.j'arp rpviVnd. But thp action n. debt afirrPpmpjl. wh;ph ;v.,c cxprVccri! in the , ,f.on,jfv 'nf 7Kp CfrmP )pinx rppogniz d by
. -ial'nVi- 'HWf or 'constitution, to T he vPrdrct well sup, ortPd I ; p rpnI no jn on lhp pndorsp1Pt rn ; . fi rU r r rprp'on law I are of nplninn that
al!hp Mrn'oV.nr inland l-nned.- He enns 1cis. wh.rh havp bepu Pnt up. will the nf n n .p nr .-,, , ,,Tp rl)rinrsPP. and the. 1c,n , . . .-1 .-. 1n , .P' mmnn lavi up ? ,
y-' , ", ..'-; :....:A ., ,u r,r.nr,? 5n, 1l0ro 1,-ln.r nn hs nf PV- .: .- ... l.i.Knntc ' w' '"' v " " ' '' ' i( x '"''l " "'" ' ',l mo litorp ti nm Prnn IMM .1... ........
--in. unip.r .tipr.u" .".,. ..,.; -- - "; ' reason afjn.-p tn imp n.,,,,,,-,., ' f -" ' mv Water Stro.her or ordnr.- iv.cjttv. hnS bemi nndc the-omundof ft-epiimi. t
paniisi mni prqv.r i- .,v .. ... ... ,. ; ,"'."' , is a wnm or nrn.v ... .-- - - ,,nf1fJ-cnvVQ :nuI raivpe on or bef...e th-; fQPP TT-.-.Icpm v. Wool a n, 1, TV, and n
. il 1.. , ,.,inn? nn iprppnrl nnrl !! nnnoar nff !n trie .. , I ...,1.-,..- nnr hopif orP.- . i i i :.r , v --. ...., , j
f!:::: ...ihw;, n6-oooda;d,u.:r" izn:z 7-ua) n"! MpPhrfL 7,0. A,.i,n. vS. Gee,-4,rJ.
T. " .r" ; r; Ii-Iph, rpa!nn n.lnn.dl nnn,:il. It if:' Z, " Yr "" ht t!.P,mlnrWt .""niap .-; . . . ; M Cord. 211-2 Wilcnn. 309. -: o
.un". :i"-. '"':::.:;:: ": :V W,I .d;.wl(rpd .l dPnd. ihat thpJr ;; ;; '"AnVMp.Pohd.irin rhPpPtitiopalWe.thp ,Pr,,alnl the; T.,-.nrdrrPdi....r U. mpntonhe ,
.J rZLLZC Jintrn the findirment of the Court be affirmed, and J fo nrov- fhV amount plWd. and only to-M Dnrjnian in pav. .ahlimisl. "Pm re-, cort bp,ow be nffirmwl. fc, T
.- f- 'j"I ;.i..ti "i 'rT.flpndpP.i'lha. iPn nprrpni.Jhp laxpd lliprpnn, for hp lP, in-aftpr pPln!.lihinff fho riff' 1 to sup. qjiipcf. and ,. amPiJ i prav-n. mr in . . HE M l-'H'l:
' V17- UJi: , V ,;,,-:, .M ,i .l,m,BO'fi ei7rn.l !, iI,p nlntmiir in iIip Tin,,, &Hl,i MiPHdKlinptinn-! wonlfl sllll valiiP nf hp. ralUe. A want ol ennine- TTenrlpVcnn Cor Appellant liuclilpy . p
' . J;.!?f"n.T:J"" r,;C TJnnrtW.fi;m.hVlv. - Jail in the absence of statutory nrovis-jpnonUplonded by the defendant, and for ApppIpp. .
.in..i.nM, "" ::::r ; WTr.MPHTLL. , I nnS.inPnrrs whprplhp common law ffo- ii.i adml.tPtl by the plamiifl. in au,wer
,Tu?LT5' ;' 1". L Wailvlw--GiIIesnleforAnnpIIee. . . vern, would.be willfp, a profiil ph- in an.ii,.Prroflai..rv. bvthe fcdvPrcp pat.y. , -.m .TohjK L RljrInn, Apppllnnt V. ; r
j 'v?w-' " j - - ' - 31 . - . - z .....-. ,n kimitii; o.in pmi- i iiiiiiif. nnin Tzi rri iirinn :r iiiiii- .:... K'uitr iv A.-k,.nvA .tr-.r-.Aiin r mi
llll' 1IIJII1IJ rN. lllll 111 . "' .i.,--i "i -- -: if . . . . .. . . ,-l ..I .. nK-.aj. T- ' I T ' M II l'u ..-.
-- cjdedliv the -Snprenv Court of the Re-
jpjnW in 1 hp ensnj of iHp Board of Land
CnrnnM?orier of Milam c.untv, v.
Wm. W. B-ll. (Dy'dam.. 366.) and ihe
"1&piiblic.nf Tea. V3.vheir of Joseph
IncJh, cJprM, (Dallam.' 6QQ,) that the
rcoInnizannn law of 24' h Match, IS25
wareppaleflliy dpcrce No. 190. of the
jiaip of ibe 23 h A prll, 1 S32. This lal-
:ter!ecrep v.?s repealed by a third plan
t fetbplirjnM' of- public la nds, hi ng
'"rlpprpp Noa 272, adnpid March 26 h,
lg34,bv which la-tter decree, all further
coloriizuinn enntrads were "prohibited
'from belnrr matlf. and all those hereto-
fore made, were required Jo be siricdv
"Iliiifillefr and in" entire accordance with
the law of -thp 24th March, 1S2-5. Bui
V in the ca of me heirs oflnglish, there
js'nn allpjraiion in tht pptition, that the
"deceased wns hrouchf into the country
tasa. colo-lt, or rereived as such, by
nnvEmprfnrin,in fnlfilmppt ofanvsub-
? -cistius folonizMt'on contract. Had thi
" allegation bpcn mad- and proven, he
would'havp had thp likp claim lo land.
"yiih anv'othpr colonial of similar qualifi-
.calinn. who had dird-befre the Dccla-
'ration of Independence. No aid can be
'derived to this, r-laim, from Art. 32, of de-
cre No. 272, which authorize titles t
,an.d'. to be issued to- the iulrabit-ants ol
"iNacnodoche Frontier. Nor from de:
rprgp No 309 of the. 2nd May. 1S33.
whiiJi autiiprized land to b given t'o.all
f per.eon- and famine's ibeii residing in
jr'Xa. and who had uot received l.tnd
- "ii''m2 ,n fbp coIoimz it i"tt laws. This
Taw va noi pio?peVtive in its operafion,
antl it-benefit cannot therefi.re, be ex-
pended to emigrants arriving subs'eqpeirt
rt" 'Is P"c5age.
;rf B,nt we are referretl to Art. loth, of
the declaration of ihe constitution,' as -a
dVot4?s'nn "' "PpfyingalPlhe deficien-
of fornier Ipoislaiinn. and ensuring 10
emigrants who were williugjio-encounter
?lHe hazards of our conflict Tor constilu--jfifttial
liberty, the .qunnluin of lands
vvvbicb we.re theiemfote grained, tj rider
.tlfe laws ol colnniziuon. I lint Aritci.
is expressed in the follovihg terms : ' All
nprson .now in Tex'is and tjerf.jru.ing 1
jhe.dtuies of cittzens, who have nwi ac-
auired their quantum of lanil. shall be
' - - i
r. From the expression
eem.to have been ihe opinion of- this J
eniittad lo the benefit" oftbe 1..W of colon- the defendant has-been hroug-ht into co ... . jrrmr 1IT,. , I1P -,. .... - , .-;. ,. . :- . r. ... . ,
tr ion under .which they emigrated ;' by. he service oftbe original process. The and mamfe,, ,! does no, afi,.rd thai and ,he icsira.n .mposed on parte lar
' 'Sd all DProns who' ma emigrate .same court declared, that olthongh mudff.J w...v in the righ.s nf.be appellee, ,ns cases. ?I,pror.i the general rttle, w hether
- -rA- d& ou conflict for Ls.itu- 1 moot by Nil did t i not technically - a lender! ,0 he given lo him by . hr law.- ,,, would not have heen better policy ,0
Tionnllit ivTantlpWlbrm the duiies of jndgmeiit by confeion. vet it cannot by The Supreme Conrl can only gn;e , lama - have .rea.ed t, I .wagers onginaly as
,nnj,ni iinenv d , . beneffr ol aiivonnd .easanrng. be distinguished In in GPs of ten per cent., in cae .1 snould.be gtmng cauh acts, is iiqw 100 laie4o d.-
ciiizen.na d - , such nn one, respectftwr its elTecl as a wr.iv- ,hP opinion of ihe Court, that the appeal cuss. They have too loijg", and too often,
lhe Jaw, under which they, em grated ..-' nu...o,.tc vs Johnson. i..i l i. r.:-.1..1..... .! il.U -vxiih been held nod and valirl contracts .
ij-rT 1 ) il u ji tft
- constituent ooriy, umi u.e cluiii-, i .hi ideJl;mJ.,ntj hnt i,e voluntarily withdrew ; tpn, nf their -undpriaKin-r.: whereas the repori, and il mav now be regarded as
- ljEerSon; residing in he conniry atli h,s ld svs n0,h.ng in bar or j ,nw inpnf,Pf, n him, lh;m , ,,IP pet, ( se.iled lav, lint wagers are only illegal
rf"."" -- " C , n ',. " nnr., f-preeiusion 01 .tie pramim ...w... - " formance of the udgmenl of ihts Uouri, w iipii they are .prohibited hy statute, or
: , afterwards arrjve diJiin ihe Lonti u ndmll ,nm af(pr ., hstf) n ,, on mnt j .? nfi. mw, jmfl tlmenl j wllPI1 lllPv wou"i(1 bc nn ituucemen. lo a
. .were provided for by some ne of he tcrs that would have beet, availab e. if not,, .m nnlnn)vPO,t nul dama- breach oftbe peace, or .0 immoiali.y-
...various colonization laws, which had Willved nild ab:idoned hy bim; I say to i,mVment ofilip 01 when they militate against public pli-
. once been in Puce ; but -by an examina- admlt ,jim t do tl is, nld be to Pe. vert " ? - f , decency-or Jul i lee
,,Hqn of these Screes, we have found tl;a. the rules oflaw, to thedest.uction of r.ght , conrl 1 J ,v,.io.,. in ' .he particular itHeresf of individuals.-
after the 2nd May, '1S35, there was 1.0 inslend of adapling .them to ihoendsol, c. cr at u e J ,
. Jaw in existence, granting land to em.- just.ee Indepd it may be well question cai .. . - , - y Rpp.sC-l iinlv..in nrmv ins,anee, prndocpd a re-
' grams, except in those parus where the; ed:.fihe ends of p.stice have been ever ad. bc rur.p i"P ,, 10 oive sp- GO. Good Vs Flliol 3 Te.m Rep lax-.tion cf the rule of evidence 0u thN
Colonization contracts non
Mlorll n?& bt;: to I ges of the aBM ; ."nd the appeal, in such j Rep., 010. when I say that this hberabty or, ecu,
raw,' under winch he mnv 'lnvp emigra-
ted. cannot from thai -provision, claim
nmlomW wfVh Wl evn-red nr pv nus
" " .v'," ,' .
lo hi. arrival. I he.exnressionsoimei- v-. . .,. ..... M, , ... .... ... .
.iclarpRrrorl lo, nrP c-neraf. .mhr.g f 26W rnled thnrS W. bv to..n ;l. .
.. w,ll jWii,, bfrorP,-:fs'i!r..T Ihr . rtnKMon of toe r.-msn nf nr , . n J
r. r --oV t . :. : - r.a l would spem to n. that a fortiori, njuuff
2nd May, 1S3-5 : but. us provisions ran." ,ri u-thn s-m.e
,. , . ' ' oHori mpntbvA'J diciJ. .would op me snni.
ronff r notbinj? on nprsnn arrivins fl'tPri. . ,. ., r .i....ii.i.!',Mirnc
. . i . - , .Um f vp hpunvp tuprpton.
ihplpllftppn'inprppisprunneio.hem., p M eT
nflprnaritn!nriMrrunianrp?:MhebeiiP-1fnfhpn?iQwp-r
' fit of lfV"ong.nal law nf colonic lion
rQ.. Jesse H. Cartwright, vs. Aaron A.
Rnff
fc'-' " '
This c.T?eis hrouo-ht before ns hv a writ
j fprmr to fhP -Histrict Court for the conn
?v of "Fort Bend.
' Tlie suit wa?brnughi in that court, by.
the apppllee. as endorsee of a note of hand,
I npppUnlti nnd by Tifm
endorsed. At the return term, jnagmi'tst
was claimed for ant of an answer, hut
before it was mrtured. ictp a final judg-
ment if wass.npprsp.dpd by the answer of
the -defendant. At the next suceeeding
fprmnf the Court, the defendant withdrew
Tiis answpr. andlnVtgment was entuieci for
thp plaintiff, hvJVil (licit.
Thp errors "assigned, are: lrf. Tiie
plaintiff, by bis pptition. shows no canp of
aefion agninst the defendant. 2nd. The
Cnurf should not have rendered a judg-
ment withnnf a inrv.
On m.'- first point, it i? true the pQfilinn
does not state what diligence bad been
uspH by the pfaintiff : it does not aver that
suit had been instituted against ihe maker,
nor any reason why it had not been done.
Tt may iherpforp. be well questioned, wheth-
er the pptition would liave been sustained,
if nbjprted loat the proper time, in the court
below, and even here, if there had been Jo
anpparnnce, and the judgment had been
hv default. "For there are strong reasons
ro believe that, although our statute dis-
pp.nsps with dpimnd and-notice it was noi
intended to relieve the endorsee, if he
wished fo fiv the liability of the endorser
firm, by usino- due diligence, and as it was
.essentia! bpforp niir statute, that he should
aver in hisppptio , demand and notice in
a suit, against the endorser; it is reasona-
ble that be-should still show, that he had
user! snebdihgpnce as is required by the
statute. fSee.rof .Irpiarv 25th, IS-10.
see. 1'st and 6th.) Rut let it be conceded
that the petition is bad. and' that it rould
not have been sustained, if objected- to be-
low, or even would have heetj lecersed. nj
error, if there had heen no appearance, by
the defendant, in the" District Court, we
"wijl et.iquire whether these defe.ets have
not bpen cured and waived by what ap-
pears on the record. What then, is the le-
gal presnjnpriu tn he deduced from the
judgment, hv Nil tic'l ? T' Ik,s been held
hy the Snrreme Court of Alaban a. with
nitich good reason, it seems to me, tint
the withdrawal nf a plea, admits the cause
of.aclidn and waives aJJ, irregulatit es-in
the declaration, and will even cure the
want ofa declaration." (6th P.irter. :'5S.)
It must he rememhered, that in ino- or.ue
1 ' .. ..
of Alabama, suits are brought hv -origin, it
j writ, and- ihe declaration is not filed until
3, Stuart & Potter, 269.) The enlry ol
.., .-I . ... 1. 1 IW1 U I IJLC. i.unit u j - - - - - -- i MiU Wl'lil Id '-j dm Ul'l't ci ' T " T -
111irrinniii c.i,.iict ill.. 11 -t:iii.i. ... i.iv .. .1 .. 1 1 j... ..... -. ...n ill I'x 111 iiiiw :iiiii ,'tii. ill ill' niniiii ill rill ii-nri il
ii.xti uitiii o.i.nko " .' - a fi .111 s ... 111. 1. mr s i in " - - -v..- ... , "'" "
. . -? .i. .,r.i-.r nt tin. .. . ..... r.il .- :.. .1 1 . I.- r 1 :. .i. . ...i
set up n (pfencp. he cot.ld have so made
j then nndh'ere.in an appellate "nnnl.--
The Simrenv u.rr at i.onisiniui, ij.i
re waived by wi the! raw-
-" ' ' - .. .
We wt!l nrnreed to ex-nmtne. ine t-i..u
ducted by petition and answer. We are
therefore, of opinion mat ine pingmeiiL in
1 - - .
- , the court below, must be. nfhr'-eerl.
T.TPSCOsVB.
Buckley for Appellant Vvehb for Appel
lee.
440. John E. Dos, Wm. E. Long
and John T. Burfnn. AoppHnts, vs. Elu-1
Griswouhl. Appellee. From H.ifsjoii
"Cnnnlv. . ""."
This is an appeal "fmm ihe Dial"ict
Court for the eountv nfTTousion. A. pre-
1'init.arv question er?se on n motion 10
dismiss ihe npppn". The appellee ha
nsjlonpfl several gvum1s in 'support tfiC-
his motion. Tt will not be neepssarv f.r
ns to uott'ee bul onp. Tl is rbi"cipd. that
Ihr (ipriral hnvd is r.nt in ncmnlnncr inf"
ihr rfatittp .trrrnhilivg the mnniirr in which
opprnhpimn fjir ptlrrmn'f; nfn difi " rnvrf.
aim! J h.- fnl-rv.J Ac'softhr 1 t wvion nfthr
LrcrisJam." nf 7V.r7.?. ;?7ov 399. srr. 130. )
Thp spption reCrrrPil to is in tl.e following
words; Anv" party taking an appeal,
shall, within twentv days after thp timp
nftiie court at which flip terror or judg
menl of thp court was rendprpd. pntPr
irtobon-t with two nr more sureties., to
be approved by the plprk of lhp court. in
"oiible the amount of ihe debt, nr tin ma-
ges, or the value oftbe slaves, nrother
pprconal pronrlv nli"dgerl. rnvihttmua
for tfir vnsrri'finn of ihr npprnl iv'th rffrrt.
nvrJ jinf'timing. ihr jiilrmrni. srpfrnrr m
P.rrirr-oflhr Fjpirmr- Covih. in rar thrdr-
risinn of suit court thall he ngnivst the (tp-
The no- -confnrmitvofth appeal hond.
in the cise under onideralion, is sup-
tosd to be in ihe ponditiomJ part of it
Tt is In tbe f.Mn.ving words: "Now if
the said Wm E Long and John E. Doss
JiaJI vrll niul vh, Vinrrvfr thfir snifl np-
wal to tfffrf avtl pmt all nh rntt nml
rtJVinrr: f? ? hr ntlpitlgrnl f7g"'.N tnnn
in sni,l Suprnnr Cii)t thm thrnhnrr aiifr-
cr':tin si vvll n'vil inid, othmcizt to mmrtn
in fvll f rcr nml tfrct.. The rfUcrrpan
cv between the bond reqtiirefl bv the
s'ralnte-and the one in this record. 1 in
ibi the first bitvJs the party nql only
to p&flspcnte his a.ppe-il to eff rU but also
' .r, -irtnt-nTtr .O F nniiinn:! T?Pn.. 1. O.
llicii iiii iin- curl "
i nmrv. ns o i i . i.i ... w." ... - . . ....-..-.-., t , ,..,. v . , . iiutriciiJii. - .1 iucr.'--
that be shall perform e iiidvmrnt; trntrnic j uubiu ful contracts, and. might be sus-
nrdrcrir of ihr Siftmmc Court, in case the , ta-nod in courts ofjusiice. In D Cos'a,
derision of the ?.ipceme Court. hill 'he ,
ord only I
leainsl the annellant. The rec
hinds ihem-to prosecute the .appeal to e!-
frvx. and to vmr nil iich enhf and f7...f'g'"?j'pa rues, arc "allowed bvthe law
as shall hr adjvjhrrd against than in said
,jje cnsl. ;a a l,al c.niilil ho aivon on ihe t
c "' m i'i. 1:11:;. n.-,,..- itiiinr tiriiimiii ia, ti'i 1 1..11 ! 1- .ici c ol mm run irti'iii
cnseAvonld ntit onprate as a Miperpde,- Tl.i-? rlffiniiinn is v-tnp antl Ipaves I lpy, if noi-universal, is by" no tneat'senn-
as. nTmicht perhaps, op roniended, that I frpqunijv, abtjiulanf. room for doubt as fined lo a small proportion of the Stales.
rv bond beforp us, would be cond under to wiiPther a particular wager be within j I hav not an opportunity to refer to an-
thjs lat rnpntionpfl version- But then, it ?t limiiaiioiu: or not. In thp ea of, thorities, but I believe thai it ran-b?
srtmnld hw, on ?7? jncrtchnt fV icas ac-
tfgpcflfar: it should how, tint it wan I
aken, j "cpnqMenrp of the innhil'.fy of!
the party, to crive thp cpcnruv renutrpd
hv sprtinn j.?6 and thepen-diy should ';r,h of Mr. .Trfiee Bui tar, was a Iumtn-
.enrrpQpnnd. in sump rpaonablf desree. nn nrfjurnpnl. !o prnve-ih it ticli a wan-
. I I II III!" I M M ,l I lit ' illMlll III V"-!.' ll"l
x-fifli il.. r.U..!v! ii.,, r ..?!;. miri
,:nma intrrtdrd to be retired. Thi
Evilencp was introduced to prove ihe
vabte oftbe calllp, and ip pirv lound to
the plaintiff, the sum of two hundred and
forty rlollars.
The Cpurt charged that money won
upon a horserace, was recoverable, nnd
exception'lherr to was taken by the de-
fendant. The appellant assigns fin- error. 11,
there was nn demand proven, and ihe
action being for specific piopprty, il wa,
necessary that a demand should i bo made.
and proven, to warrant the finding of the
jurv
, H"tl the deferdant'pl the trial, been of
4he opinion thai the cap wa. nm ttury
proven, he should have requested inst Mic-
tions. Jo the jury. io!bni effect, and should
havp prespnled in writing, 10 the judg".
such chaige or charges, as he wished
given 10 ihe jury, and the refusal oftbe
judge 10 deliver anv portion ofthese char-
ges, would have been a proper subject
for review in ibis Court, or a motion for
a new trial m'ght have hen made. This
would have been ihe more correct prac-
tice,' bul waivir.g the exception that has
been here made, to the consideration of
this ground nf error, il cannot be made
available o the appellant.
T e propetv was not to be delivered
on demand, hTii p-.vable on or before a
certain div, named in ihe instrument.
Un.der the terms of the agreement, no
demand wa necessary on the pan of ihe
credilor. The contract specifies ihe lime
at, which. ihe obligation is in be discharg-
ed, nnd il -was the dutv of tire payor to
have delivered the cat lie at thnt period
Fli fiilure to !o so, deprived him of I he
benefit of discharging hi contract speci-
fically, and rpnde'red him liable to pay
ihe value of the properly in money. (See
Oatdie. vs. TitusDallam623 BMev,
vs. Whilt.pyr 5, G-penleaP Jrp-, 192.)
2nd. The charge of ihe judge, that
money won on a horse race may be re-
covered, is nbtected tn as erroneotr. I
iiir''i'
Theinsin.meni of writing, on which ihe
action is founded, was execntr d after the
introduction of ihe common law, ami
mtisi he lesierr'byMt principles. Under
tha' system wagers in gen ral .were not
vs, Jones, (Cowper, 729) it is Isiirl down
that " indifferent wagers upon indifferent I
mytiers, without interest to either of tiie
of ibis
cnunlrv. so far a iheN have notJieen re
The subjeel of wagers is fully discussed
Gno'l, v. Elliot, anove refeired to,, it
wnsjlepided that a warjpr that A. had
pjjreha p a wafnn of B-, was not void
nf eommnn law: hut mip dMSentms" optn-
' !.-,., .1 i.'iintn ! in net lr..n.
nfi he definition, and. that in the i)ech-
.(T v ;S I'llpilU I II I. Ill II I ...o. """Ill II
Narngdocher
I rp,,-, ,r , ,u,i,vn nnnonl
, rrnm ,hp . (J nTp , nf ?pp pj?Iri(.t Court
lor the cnun'v of Nacogdoches. 1 tie-
appellee in this Cohort. Anderson, brought
hi suit against the appellant, John 1.
Burton, to repoveruionev paid by htm
f.r the iid Rnrtnn.ni his special instance
nnd reqttest?in Mobile. There wa proof
tbnt fi.irfnn wa
indebted lo the hrm ol
A Nj.(nvn fr Co.. and that A. Td'Cown
wprP j,H,phpfl n Am!erson two
ihousand dollar, besides interest, for
which he held I heir due bill. Tt was
further in prosifrthaf bv-an ncrangemenL
between Anderson and Burton at Mobile,
at ihe eonnling-house of A. M'Cown &
Co.. Burton had the benefit of the flue
.hiW mentio-ed, which was credited to
him by V'Cown & Co., on Burton s cup
bill, "which they held for a much larger
nmonnt. ft ' mrn. one f-t ine nrm.
swears thai he was acquainted with" the
whole transaction, and that it was a loan
from Anderson to Burton, on the promise
thai it should be spttta'd on their return
home. Anderson offered in evidence, a
receipt in the words fnllnwing: " Receiv-
ed, Mnhilp..l7ih.Tannafv. 1S35. frnm
Mr. John T. Bnrlnn,nne (Imp hill tn B. W.
Anderson, for two thousand dollars ami
interest to date, which, we will ctedtl to
hi rlne bill to us, for balance of his ac-
count. " (Signed) .A. M'COWN & CO. .
Amount S2t)00. . . -
Interest ' SO 44.
2.0S0 44. .
peV Ge"o. Hr.xRr.'
Il was, in proof, that ibis receipt was
given at the time and place that il pur-
ported Jo he, for ihe purposes and under
ihe circumstances be for stated, at the
city' of Mobile in ihe Siate-of Alabama:
ft Was in proof, that trie legaj rate of in
tores! was 'in that Stale, eight pr cent
.. - - .- .- i 1
M r.e nppeiiani ' .1'''.,, ....,
gronnrls of error, frfr otir conideraltnn
We will take them. up in-the order pre-
sented. First, thnt thr court hrloworetf in
vn mitt ins parole evidence to gv. to thr j 'try.
tQfproic the rate of intnevt in the Stiile of
Alnbnmn. ni tlirrcvsno arermcni in rue vrri-
'tinn thnt the iiidtbtrdnrst .lens incur red in
that Stntc. .Interest is conceded to be a
creature of lncal laws, and is governed
bv ihe" laws' of. the country where ihe
contract is ma Je, or the debt incurred,
andwhere fhe late of interest is fixed by
ih'e written-faw of ihe country, it must
he-proven in general, as any oiher-facr.
that is "m say, bv the best evidence ihal
can be "procured, and thi has in most
cases of foreign" "written laws, been held
lobe by an "siutheulic'coj.v, utufer the
greal seal oflheSlaie, but il i doubled"
if this rule is noi too rigorous when appli-
in ihe courts o one nl lite Males, to
another one of the Federal Unhm. True
it is, that to many purposes the Slates are
foreign 10 each oilier They'are inde-
pendent in their municipal regulations of
intet nal government, bul their peculiar
relationship to each other, as members of
the same common confederacy, almost
forbid our applying ihe term foreign i
1 be aws ot another Mate, it has err
shown that, the cpl lection of the.acls
printed and punished in a book purport-
ing to he by thp authority of the Statej
after beincr provrn hv some person fup
oed to be well informed on the subject
tobp thp written law. has been often re?
ceivrd ai evitjonce of the statues of a
iate. I cannot perceive any spiiousob-
offered, was such as 1 hare stated, fc-do
not think that it could be objected to.
'We are not however, informed - what
j manner the proof was .made. The. r.e-
cord-otdv shows us that the rate of inte-
rest in. Alabama was proven to be cigbt
ppr pent. Evprv prpstimpiion is in ,fkvorr
of the-court blow; and- we cannot say
rhaj-t'ne testimony. wa nnt'lpjzalty made
nut. as required !v the rules of evidence.
There ?rrmz to have been a great dea! of
estimony taken by interrogatories. Jand.
one excepted m: anrl no f-ceptiotvCan
e tmdo m thi Cnu'-t, to the conclusion
f the-Jury on its'pfTf'cf. Tt is further ob-
pcted. thnj fhrre is vo nlh a-n time in the
v priitinp fj.nt threnn'frnrt. or the inJrbtfdnrss;
.onerm tril iv ihr, Ffntrn; AlnLamn. ' I lie,-
psiiif.n oughr cprtaitdv to co tain snh-
stauht.flv enough to let in evidence "ft he
'grin, nd of the-aetion it ought itvlmwa
ight to 5iic this being done, it doe not
seem to me. thai i: is necessary, to aver
wh'rt would be nn accessory,, or ennse-
aupnrp dfibp rinht of nriinn. Thp mat-.
ter averred sets up a transitory right of
action in the plaintiff and whether such a
right carried interest as -an incident,, qr
1 not, sppms fo me, mav be a matter ot,
I iiro'nf. after nrnving the essential grounds
of the action. At anv ratp.r'bjpcfinn
should he made fo the admissibility of
such testjmnnv in the court helnw-. and i.
not so marie, it cannotiiagrnunrf efr
ror ih this Court, fr.pggenysi Reetee
el. 1,L. R.. 301 MMeekinsiBrawn,
6. N. S-, S6 5, L. t T?. YnftmanyMra
Erw in pi ja 1 0-5-6. J-s)w ,
A not her object inn i, thnt ns 'vo interest
cnvld hr gh'rv, vnlcsx Tpvf cMitracttd
for.prrrinvs to o'ur statute rlS40, vo mlc-
rest ought to luir'e hrm alfoicra1. This nb
jeeiinn wnuhl have been well aken, a
tn the eight percent., if .there had bc.ep.
nn evidence nt the inneivpntie,ss paving
-accrued in another s.jhp; bill there was
testimony to that effret as thpre was,no
exception to the evidence, after verdict,
we must presume that proppr proof was
made, or that it admissibility was waiv
erl, on cases a I ove cited.
Anniher objection is. thnf thr jitry found:
hy theh wrrdict. thr amount oj principnl'anW
thr r 'tr ofinfrrrof from . a Jixrd timri when'
the principnl and infrrist sTifuTd loth have"
hern found hi jhtm in thr nrg':rgafi'7 The
rule is believed to-be well settled, tnal if
the verdict ?s sufficiently certain, Jo he
rendered certain, it is good. ThF-jury,
bv finding thprnsemfiritprcsf the amount
it is to be calculated on, and ihe 'dale,
from which it i to run, leaves nothing;
uncertain in lhe'judgrrrent lhal should be'
rendered on their verdict. Judgment,
affirmed. " . LTPSCOMB.
Henderson forAppellant.4
426. -B. J. Thompson, vs. M. Cat-
wrighf. -This was nn action on a promissory
note by the payee", against the maker.
The only question worthy of consirlerat
lion, is presented by the bill of excep-
lions. The appellant in thp'conrt below,"
answererl, fully negatived the plafntifPa
petition; fhe atiswer corresponding with
the.general issue in its effects, according
to the common "law rules of pleading
Afier-lhe plainiihail closed hfs-'tesfitrroi
monv. the "defendant offered.fo prove that
rhe plaintiff n the actFon, was not the
owner of the "note sued on, but his testi-
mony, was rejecterl by ihe judget to which
the defe.nd.int exceptetl. There is nq
doubt, but that where the payee of a.note
has.disposed of his interest in it, without
a iransf. r, and siill holding tht "possession
tha' a case might occur, where the maker
ought to be allowed In prove the fact , for
tie pnrpo'se of-leiting hi any defence-arfs
mgbeiween himself and .he person 'hav-
ing the beneficial interest in the nnfe, and
under our- system of jurisprudence? de-
fences of that character could be made
available in an actioH 'like the, one under
consideration; not though by a plea-in
alvitement. but bv setting up suclrmatter
of defence specially, fn the i'nwer. The
mj-re. naked fact of iheplaintiflTubi being
ihe real owner of ihe note, would not he
milter of defence, either hi hi: or in
abatement. It not uiifrf queritfy hippetis;
in the. course of business, Jm! j suy 'f
law is brought by the )gal bnjde.rwben
the interest is in an'other, and thprac-
- - , - r i fd-?M
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue 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 Newspaper.
Ford, John S. The Texas Democrat (Austin, Tex.), Vol. 2, No. 4, Ed. 1, Wednesday, January 27, 1847, newspaper, January 27, 1847; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth48352/m1/1/?q=+date%3A1845-1860: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.