The Texas Democrat (Austin, Tex.), Vol. 2, No. 49, Ed. 1, Wednesday, December 15, 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:
.A.
V
t J- - ? 1
-' -ssjie
"TBtssafc.
IfW
n
': - I iPT.
rf vJtK
mm
VOLUME n.
V -
TCILLIA.fi SliHTJPSOIV,
TPizVcA anrf Coc& Maker,
and Repairer and Jeweller ,
Congress Avenup, opposite
the Treasury Department,
Austin. Watches, Clocks
and Jewelry repaired ,with
promptness, and an assortment of Jewelry
constantly on h:nd.
Maj 22, 1847. I9-Iy
EUEISE O'COKNOK,
Merchant Tailor, Congress Avenue,
Crrr op Austin,
HAS on hand a fine assortment of superfine
Broadcloths, Casimeres and Fancy Vest-
ing:, which he is at all times prepared to work
up to order in the neatest Mid most fashiona-
ble style. - -(j"
Cutiins promptly attended to. ,
October 1st, 1847. 38::if
SHACKELFORD & .
Wltolesale and Retail Dealers in Dry
Goods, Boots, Shoes, Hardware,
Cutlery, 4c: Sec.
lOGETHElt with a ueneral and complete
assortment of Groceries and JLiquars con-
jtantly on hand.
They will alsft give tlipirparticularattentinn
o the gales and shipment of CjItton, Hides,
&c, in this, or to.any of the Northern or For-
eign markets, and attend to the receiving hnd
Jorwarding of all articles for the interior.
Houston, Oct. 21, I84G. 42::tf
Ain?soN & c., .
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL IiIERCIIAJiTS.
ARE constantly receiving a' general as-
sortment of
n r 7 ft r ,... Q.,JJ7..
"AT "': '."'; -"J- -;"-y,
X2lfS, jWUWii', A1IUHU.UIH vailLy,
. l'lnf .i.m t-4wlvn ra I .in I rf I
China, Earthen, Wood and Wil
low ware, Books Stationery,
4'c, oc.
.(New Brick Store, upper corner Long Row,)
iioiistoH.
Ht. Sami-son, - E. J. Hart & Co.
Houston. New Orleans.
March 5, 1847. 10::tf
iStsxxge wlxi& ConimlMlou Warehouse, for Cotton
" and ISIerchaiitUse.
It. S. BLOU2YT & CO.
22. corner of Main and Commerce streets,
HOUSTON.
' tvRC.fi A : I S an.?' Vhr.-.lrrs UvUg Al .
--- hst.uicafnm Houston, will jind.il to
tljeir -interest, to give us thejr -iorci:t Cot
ton, s i--ell as juercinniijse, vifj .oe'cmirely
protected from the weather a:.d from ojtile,
and at night, enclosed within strong doors
and locks.
The buildings 111 extend to the wharf, op-
potite the usual landing place of the steam-
boats; consequently no drHyajre will be char-
ged upon either Cotton or M-reiinndise. The
location is near the husines-. part ot the city,
nnd nssei!ies a convenience mid asd'aniaae,
-which none ntln-r can Inive : in addition to
-which inducement, we pnuniseto give all the
.nttention necessarj' for the interest of our
correspondent.
, August 4, 1847. 34::9w
FUHNITDBE WARE BOOfci
Mais Street, Kossstois, Texas,
Opposite the nicer Brick Stores.
THE underpinned has and keeps on hand
and for 'ale a general aurlruent ol
Furniture, coripisiing in part of the following
Articles, viz:
Card, Centre, Dining and Breakfast Tables,
Bureaus, Sidtboards,
Sec'y &. Book cases, Wood geat Chairs,
-Artnoirs, Cane do. do.
Otfic Desks. Mahogany do.
Ctuntiii house do. Sofa-,
H'iJlh and low post and Trundle Bedsteads,
jee !cc.
M. WILLIAMSON,
illnusion, Oct. 1. 1847,
NOTICE.
THE undersigned having this day formed
u copartner.-hip in the prnciiceof Law,
throughout the 2d Judicial Dibliict, tender
!ieir professional services to the public, and
hope to receive a liberal patronage.
il. A. RUTHERFORD,
N. S. RECTOR.
. ,N -r ( R. A. Rqjiikrpord, Bastrop.
Address : j N g Ri cToRj Sfiuitu
Dec $ih, 1846. 52 ly
MEGG1NSON, SMYTH, CO.
Attorneys and Covnsdlvrs at haw.
, . i Jos. C. Megginmin, Gatrcston
Residence: j R. T. sMYTu,-J7rry.
One of the firm will be at all timts j tin
pfnee in Galveston. Office in Galveston ml
joininjr'he office of the clerk of the United
States District Court.
April 847. 17
- Xiancl Agency.
WILSON RANDLE and N. S. REC-
TOR, havinir formed a Partnership, nre
prepared to attend to any hiiMnees connected
with a General Land Agency, especially tin
p ol lands. Lel'ers addressed to Rjnidle
& Recior, Seguin, Texas, and post pnel, will
hMrnmntlv attended to. References: Dr. ,
' ' '
Ivi June.. Gitlvfstnii: Tln. M. Biphy,
Honnton; Capt. John G. Swisher, Austin;
G. W. Rogers, Huntsville.
Se,.i. 18, 1847. 36::ljr
F. JOHNSON is my lawful agent-du-.
rin" mv absence from the Stare.
M. C. HAMILTON.
Oct. 24,1847. 43: Iw
JOB PRINTING
sxseoTF-n with neatness and despatch
r
' '" lVCD
- ft 1 lll
AT THIS OFFJCK.
AUSTIN.
'OPINIONS DELIVERED BY T11E
! SUPREME COURT.
DECKMBKR TERM, 1S4G.
No. 307.
Allen Vince, Supreme Conrl, Decern-
vs. ber Term, 1S47.
Brook, et al. ) "
Opinion of the Court delivered by A-
S. LipscomBj Associate Justice.
Motion to dismiss the appeal.
In this case it appears fiom the record,
that judgment was rendered on the 1-t
day of May, 1S43. The transcript of
the record, bearsdate 3rd June, ISJ4.
The appeal bond was filed the 27ih day;
ol May, 1S44. 1 here is a c rtiticaie oi
the clerk, that a previous bond was filed
-in time alter the judgment, but th .t h hud
been lost, il does not appear when it was I have been found to advance thestKbstan-
filed. The record was filed i-i ihiscoun j ii;, ends of justice. vThe court will exer-
on the iSlh day of June. 1S44 it ap-
pears al-o from the record, that nt ice ol
an appeal was given on the same day riblsof theopposite part', lithe defend-
the judgment was rendered. This i nil ;iutsli;ifl not pined themselves in court b
that is shown by the record, as to the . their answers, doubtless a new writ, would
d.tes, when particular things were done.
By law, the Supreme Court rommeuo-d
its first session after the date ol the judg-
ment, and notice of appeal on the second
Monday in June, 1S43. It will be s- n
lhat the record was not made out, not
filed for more than a year afier the ap-
peal had been claimed. The 19ih sect,
of the act of Limitations, 5 Vol. L. .Tex-
as, 1GS; provides, that any party believ-
ing himself agrieved, m.iy have an ap-
peal to the Supreme court, within -ix
mnnius, iicai autw in
months, next after the adjournment of the
- whi h the wMinn f Su-h
judgrrent was made, which apyeal shall
be granted in open court, at the term ot
the judgmenl or decree, without petition
or citation, or at any time afiei wards,
within the year, by application to the
clerk, and citation to the adverse ja ly
or his attorney, to be seived at least I n
idavs before the first clay of the return
term of the appeal. The appeal shall be
of right, but shall not supersede final
process, unless bond is given, &. There-
is a good deal of ambiguity in the section
just cited, but il is believed to be suscep
tible of a construction that would make-l
i4 illrtnt provision-; harmonize. Ji
cois to har internal-to-provide Jw
ipndf-s of taking an appeal to theSnpn me
Court. The first, where it had been
granted in open court at the same it rm.
when the judgmenl had heen rende-vil,
and this was without citation, but U
must be done within six months from the
adjournment of the term ol the com:,
when such judgmenl was rendered. Tin
second mu.l have been intended l b.
where no appeal had bet n taken in op i
court, and this could be dmie at an time
within the year, from theadj urrnmein u
the court, in which the judgment was
rendered ; the appellant if he resorts to
this mode, must caue citation to be is
sued and served. It is clear, that the ap-
peal was not prosecuted in the chsc b -lore
UB. within tin six months. It will
then be enquired, whether the' appellant
has brought himself within the proviio:i?
of the other mode authorised b the: law.
If he had causetl citation lei have been
issued, it wouhl have left it only to be
ascertained, if he had made his applci-
lion to the clerk, within the year, from
the adjournment of the court ; there i5
nothing before us, by which we can de
.ermine when the District court of Har-
ris county, which rendered the judgment
in this case, on th' first day f May.
1S43, adjourned. The appeal b unl w as-
filed on the 27th dav nl" .May, 1S44, il
the term continued, through the mouth
of May, until the 27ih elay, the appeal
would be within the e.r; and if the ci-
tation had been suetl out, mi the absence ol
proof, we could not have s.iiel, iImi ii
was more than one year from tin rendi
tieui of the judgment. If a citation had
been asked, the tecfJid.-: should r-hew n.
We have ne doubt of the coin etnes ol
the rule, that when an aope.il ha heen
once taken, thai il mini be reiurneil io
the sue ceeding term thereaher id rln- Su-
preme eemrt, lhat (juerion is not believed
to he presented in lhisca-e. The appeal
not having been taken in conformiiy with
the law. The case i elismis-ed.
Mary E. K venaugll unci No. 4f?4.
Nelson Kevcnaugh J A wiii oi Er-
VS. ror to ievi-e
Nancy Brown and Wil- I the judgment.
Man. Brown. J
Opinion of the Court : live ed b- A.
"N Lipscomb, AK inle Justice.
This case comes In fore n on a writ of J
rror to revise the judgme lit of ihe Di.--
'..!... .1 ... I t I .
'ncr ooun lor wcouiiiy oi v Hsning.on.
I lie plamtiHs in error as-igu ihe o.,w
ing grounds as error, on which they a-k
therevisalof the judgment ol the court
below.
First the court below erred in permit-
lit g the planning lo amend ihe writ by the
petition.
Second, the court below erred in its
charge lo the Jury, as set forth in ihe
bill of exceptions.
It appears from the record lhat a mo-
lion was made, before answer filed, to
TEXAS, WEMESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1817.
?'( JV H .11. vi !'). -SgiS
quash the writ, on the ground thai there
was a variancebeiweeh il and the pelt-
tiiin, which motion was sustained, and
leave given to amend the win ov me
petition. The defendants then answered,
but first excepting to decision of the
j J udge in allowing the amendment.
j The object ion was, no doubt, well lak-
j on in the District -Court, but under our
j statute of amendments, it is believed that
it was competent .to allow the amend-
mem ol t he-writ by the petition, wntcn
..." . . . . I
was certainly the lunitiative step in the
enii, and nothing ,li,as been more, usua
than to allow a uosequent mistake to b
i amended bv something that proceeded it.
This has been allowed, when the laws of!
j j, jrt,s j,.,ve ,,, ;lowe(t as much latitude
;ii; ours; such amendments are not calcu-
j l.-nnl io HH' ct the merits of the case, and
cise a soun. I discretion, and protect in the
ifimon which an amendment ismade,the
have been aw ardetl, or if after appearing,
s- Ificient time would have been allowed
ih'-iii to answer; if ihe amend tient efihe
tlefective writ lad been calculated'lo sur-i-e
them, such matters from necessity
must be left to the se und discretion of the
Judge, and ii Would require a si mug case
jof abue in the exercise of such discre
tion to justify a reversion by this court.
The second nssigrnenl is believed to be
belter founded. It appears from the re-
cord that anions other matters set up a
a defence lhat Mary E-Kevena gh plead
that she was a married woman al the
lime, the joint note- of herself and hus-
band, on which the sui? was brought,
was executed. The truth of this plea
was admitted, and the Judge, as appears
from the bill of exceptions, charged the
Jury that "a married woman could Irrid
herself in a pnomi-sory note, and the fact
lhat the saitl defendant was a married
woman at the time of mquing and sign-
ing the note sued on in this action, diel
not preclude the rdainlitTs from recover-
ing in this action against liie said Mary
E. Kevenaugh." There can be no ques-
tion that ot common law 'a wife cannot
bind herself in any cont ra g to.cpfn pfeta-:
K ihet existence merged in law lhat she
cannot, by laches, during coverture, for-
'eil her legal rights. Il is unnecessary to
re er io auihoriiv on this subject, and the
opinion of the Judge in the e'ourt below
must have been founded on a supposed
ability to contract ami liahiii y if) be sued,
ari.-ingout of the fict that her sep-ira:e
proper lv was secured to he'r bv the act ol
20 h Janu.ir, 1S-10. n-gulaimg marital
' . - I. t
nuhts. LJ reterence to tin? act, il wi
be seen that no authority is given to con-
lraet.and no liability imprsed to be sueel
on anv contract she may enter into, dur
ing her coverture; and the whole object of
i he aet i- to guard her separate properly.
This favotite object would be defeated,
if she could be bound, or make her pro-
perty liable for her contracts. It is not
likely that she could resist the impor-
tunity ef her husband to join wiih him in
a contra; t, and preserve thai domestic
haimouv so vitally essential io the hap-
piness of husband' and wife. The law
wisely n moves the temptation by pulling
out ol the power of both. We do not
believe that the common law was alter-
ed, as to the capacity of the wife to con-
tract bv thejic securing to her such se-
tt .
paia:e property as she owned at the lime
of her mutringf, or should aceprire, durs
inc her overture; because, therefore, the
Judge erred in charging the..'ury that she
could bind herself, anil that she was
liable to bp sued on such contract, ihe
judgment is reversed, and this cause is
remanded wiih instructions io the court
In low to eiiterj-nlsment in favor of the
defendant Mary E. Kavenaugh. with her
cost, and io enter a judirn m in favor ol"
the plaintiffs below against the defendant
Nelson Kavenaugh, and ihe appellants to
recover ihe cost of this court.
Scull et al
s.
No. 431.
Motion for Certiorari.
E. AIL n
Opinion of ihe court delivered by A. S.
L IPs-com b. A -sin i.ite Justice.
in this ra-e, a mono i has been made
by the appellee to dismiss the appeal,
and a motion, by the jppellam, for the
award of a certiorari lo ihe-clerk ol the
court hi low to send up a more perfect re-
con!. The- motion to di-mi-s is on two
grounds, (others have bei n assigned in
ihe motion, but are believed by the court
not io come properh before us on the mo-
lion to dismiss,) the' first is on the ground
lhat bond for prosecuting ihe appeal has
not hi imi given in conformity to the statute
of the last session ol" the Le-gislature,
see acts of th- Legislature Texas, Ut ses-
sion, SOS, 399. The 134th section pro-
vides that any party bebeying himself to
be sgrieved by any judgment, or decree
J of ihe District Court, may appeal io the
aupieme Court from such judgment, or
decree, during the term of the court, at
which such judgment, or decree hail been
rendered; the 136th section provides thai
any party taking an appeal, shall, within
v,.",t,,iwi;l
j twenty days alter the tor
at which the judgment,
erm of the court,
or decree was
rendered, enter into bond, with two or
more securities to be apptoved by the
clerk of the court, in double the amount ecuted. The claimant's counsel object-
of the debt, or damages, &c. The first led to the introduction of the testimony!
section referred, to give the right to ap
peal, and the last, directs that the bond
shall be taken in double the amount of
the debt, or damages. It is seen from the
record that the appeal is from the judg-
r. ' . . "..-
- ment ot the court below, overruling
a motion to quash an execution; on such
a motion, we judgment, not reaching oe-
yond the execution, could not, under any
conceivable circumstances, be for any
thing, but cost, and in such cases, costs
only would be the debt to be secured by
the appeal bond. On overruling the mo-
tion to quash the execution in this case,
the court below gave n judgment for cost
agdinsi ineappeiianu oonn in uuuuie me
.L II. TS 1111.1'. . . . . i. t
, amount of that judgment for cost will be
j within the provisions of the law. The
nonit seems to have been la Ken in a sui-
ficient amount to cover the cost. In like
manner, when a plaintiff appeals, there
i no judgmen' in the court against him
for more than cos-t, and consequently his
bond wiil be in n amount to be double
the cost. On the motion to quash the
execution, the appellants were before
the court in the attitude of plaintiffs."
The second ground is, bcause the
proceedings in the court below were not
such as to authorise an appeal thereon
from i. decision to this court; that deci-
sion beinir neither an interlocutory, nor a
finaljudgment in ari' civil action. It is
true that it is not an interlocutor' judg
ment. But it does appear to be a final
judgment, as it disposes of the subject
matter before the court nol again to be
presented, and that, too, by giving J"dg-
ment for cost. If cost had been award-
ed on an incidental motion to abide the
final issue of a pending cause, there would
be no judgment for the cost, until the
cause was finally disposed of, but the
judgmenl for cost was given on the final
disposition ol the motion; we believe thai
it was a judgment, x wh-cn an ap IVnid, which was exceplec '. 'HVgM con-
peal can be'-fccuvedauJ convq.irmlv !- er principle as we! settle'd, that
ihe moiion to dismiss is overruled. The ! ,t,e raw nrotectSJiud favors innocent our-.
appellant ha- moved fora ccnmrangBXy
UjsjiUegniUn2themouonf-ll.iat rSKSpSP<-;
feels are apparent on the record on are -
ference to t-he.re ord, it will be seen that
it shows'the execution sought to be quash-
ed, all the executions that had ts3ued in
the case before it. with the reLurns on
them are there. It shows the motion of
the appellants, the grounds on which it
was made, and the action of the court
below. The grounds assigned for the
motion to quash the execution: lt. Thai
. . , T I .1
three other executions had issued on me
...ii
same judgmenl, and that ihe saiel last
execution issued on the same day lhat
ihe third was returned. 2d. That the
supposed clerk who issued said execu-
tion had not, at the lime, the said last
execution, taken the oath of office pre
scribed by the Constitutions of the United
Slates and the Slate of Texas; and the
defendants further move to quash the
levy ami return of the supposed sheriff
who levied the. said execjtion for the
following reasons: First, lhat the said
supposed sheriff had not, al the time of
making the said levy and return taken
the oath pre-cribed by the Cons itniion
of the United States and by the Consti-
tution of the Stale of Texas. Second,
ihe said defendants, nor either of them,
had the privilege allowed them, bv law,
of pointing out property to satisfy said
execution. It seems to us very cle-nr
thai on the revision of the aciion of the
court below on ihe above proceedings,
we can have nothing al all to do with ihe
recorel of the case on which the execu-
tion issued, our appellate powers are pro-
perlv restricted to the record of what
was done, on the appellants' motion, and
we can perceive no diminuiiion of I he-
record of those proceedings, and on the
contrary, it is believed to be fully suf-
ficient for this court lo understand every
thing mateiial lobe conslefercd in revis-
ing the j idgmenl of ihe District Court,
onthe appellants' motion. The certio-
rari is, therefore, refused.
No. 60G.
John W. Pearson, Appel'nt. ")
- va C
William Tom, )
Opinion of the Court delivered by A.
S. LiPbCMB. Associate Justice.
This was a tri il of the right of proper-
ly. Tom, the appellee, had sued out an
attachment again-l Thurmond, and had
ihe same levied on certain slaves. Pear-
son the appellant, claimed the slaves,
replevied them, and an issue was made-
up in the District court, for the county of
Washington, anil ihejnry found a verdict
against the claimant, and he appealed.
There was a statement of facts, but so
meagre, as not to aid much in deciding
the case. It is submitted on th briefs of
the appellant and appellee. The errors ,
relied on for reversing the judgment of"
the court below, arise on two bills of ex
ceptions, lo opinions ol the court. On
the trial, Torn, the plaintiff in the attach-
ment, offered to prove, that the negro
NtQIME i9.
man Simon, (named in the bill of sale,
from Thurmond to Pearson, but nut at-
tached,) was not in the possession of
Thurmond, when the bill of sale was ex-
a he was not levied on in the attach-
ment, bufthe court overruled tlip l.bjec
lion ; to which the counsel 'or the claim?
I ant excepted. We cannot perc-ic why
sucn testimony should n- aomiiien, u
certaiiih', when presented in the abstrncf,
was not pioper testimony, a id was irrel-
evant, it could not oive weight orstn ngth
en the claim of a creditor, to those that
had been attached ; il Pearson's titleto
rhe others, was free from any vice, even
if he had bv purchasing one, not in con-
troversy, under circumstances calculafed
jo excile suspicion, as to thrst one, and
that one. not sought to be charged with
j u,e dent ot the vendor, v would not have
been proper evidence, because the fnir-ne--s
erf the claimant's ourchase, as to that
slave, had not been put in issue, anil he
could not have been called upon to sus-
tain his title to him, until it had been im-
peached. It is possible, that the evidence
may have been unobjectionable, from the
connection of other facts, but neither the
statement of facts, nor the exception fur-
nishes any grounds for its sanction, and
we believe lhat as presented, il was im-
proper testimony, and ought to have been
rejected. There was another exception
taken to the refusal of the judge, to give
the charge requested by thp claimant's
counsel, ami to the charge given. The
claimant's counsel a-ked the court to in-
struct the jury, that if Pearson was a pur
chaser for a valuable consideration, and
bona fide, although Thurmond the vendor
might have intended to defraud his cred-
itors by the sale, yet Pearson, if no par-
ty to he fraud could not be prr judiced,
nor his right affected bv the fraudulent
intent of Thurmond. The court refused
to give the instruction ; hut charged that
fraud on the pari of Thurmond ;t hough
Pearson was no party to it vitiated the
transaction, and rendered ther-jr"ff-snce
h as creditorsr-The
ftttnd zpnsf- nnil th
, convenience of mankind. Were u other-
'" - ---
wise, the mosi innocent transaction,
would often be visited with ihe penaltie
of fraud'. A man paying a full and val-
uable consideration for properly, might
justly suppose, that in the purchase, so
far from diminishing the means of ihe
debtor vendor, for paying his debts, that
it would aflbrd a facility in doing so. lb
would be as repugnant to sound morality
-
j as (l ,s lo g00fj policy, to visit the t mince lit
purcnaser under such circumstances,
with the secret fraudulent intentions of
his vendor. Such is neither the ruhi of
law, nor of morality This plain princi
pie of law, could be well sustained, by
numerous adjudicated cases, but it is too
uell established, to rcnsler it profitable,
to go into an enumeration of ihem. Theie
are some interesting principles involved
j other points presented by the appell-
airs, ortet anet certainly, merit due
consideration. But we are too much
pressed with other paramount duiies, tr
permit our going into ai inve-iigaiion-of
points not absolutely necessary to a dis-
position of the case.
Because then fore, the i onrt below rr
Ted in thi ndtni-sio of ihe te.-ttnrony ob-
jected to by the counsel for ihe appell-
ant in the court below. And because
ihe court also erred in refusing to give
the charge prayed by the said counsel,
and 'afterwards in the cha'ge given; the
judgment isreveus'd and the cause re-
manded, for a new itial in conformity
with ihe opinion now given.
What Constitutes a Git eat Man Un-
der this head, the; Lou ell Journal tell llib
followinir good iorr.
Dr. Thompson, f C'iarle3tmvn, who pre
sided at the hilt whig conviiilion at Concord,
tnld nn anmsiiiK story ahotit a convepntion
which hu once hud with a neighbor of his, in
relation to John Hancock. The neighhor
was a jreat admirer of Hancock, and upon
one occasion told the doctor that ho thought
Hancock was the jjreatest man in the country.
The doctor ventured to say in reply that tho'
Huncoek was a man of note nnd influence, he
ret was not in reality a man i.f reat lali-utf.
mid that there weie many men of hid day-
Samuel Ailains for uiftaiice who were much
his superiors in that respect. -Why doctor!
said the other, 'I am surprised to hear jou
snv so! John Hancock not a man of tnlenr! -I
tell you I've heen to his house-, mid have
set-n three spits uoiu at once, one for the
roat pork, one for the roust lieef, and one
for the wfld fmvl, and I kuoto hea man of
talent!' Of course the doctor 'gave it up.
It is confidently averred that ex-preidcnt
Adams will ilecl:ir himself upon ihn fiist op-
portunity in favor of the antiexilion of the
whole of Mexic" to line country. Pre
Gtn. Herrnn, Minister Irorn rVew GranHfln
to our Government, has -irnvud at j"ew York
with hi- family and unite.
Thc Mijphui says the bn.Mlioii from
-,!lt ctntl is nearlv fdlrd, and that ilie Gnv.
has asked pi-rmi :n to ncerpt two ndditiona!
companies shnr.ld they -iffV-r. " 2?
r
9
r5
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.
The Texas Democrat (Austin, Tex.), Vol. 2, No. 49, Ed. 1, Wednesday, December 15, 1847, newspaper, December 15, 1847; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth48363/m1/1/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.