The Texas Republican. [volume] (Marshall, Tex.) 1849-1869, 1849-07-20

plaintiff, dated Iah May 1912 which letter h.
read TO the Jury in evidence. The letter is, in
substance, So far n. material, THAT he was
sorry that 1t was Sot In his power To h: se done
Anything for the plaintiff up TO tina, time that,
Icyery cxer,ion Will be made on defendants pnrt
Ia pay plaintiff rs soon as he po~-'hly can that
defendant has been engaged In selling farm
oa the Bra1os which was found 10 be labo-
rous business, and from which nothing had
been realized but that there was prospect
OF tine crop that year; that there was no
money IN the country. that The bill. in circula-
ton are doubtful, and many Of them vaIuclcs. !,
and, when offered II was not known whether
they ought To be received or not. lie hoped TO
be able to make payment that winter that
war with Mexico again unknown
what extent the injury may be from it; every
thing duh land not selling except small tract,
occasionally on time" There was verdict for
the plaintiff iog the amount of the notes and
interest, The defendant, made motion tor Il
new trial, on the grounds that the verde, was
Iconlrary to law and evidence which WAS over
ruled 10y the Court, and the defendant Appealed
The appellant mainly relies on one ground
for reversing the Judgment of the Court be-
low. That the Court erred in permitting the
letter from Coles to Kelsey to 90 To the Jury.
The most important points presented by the
record ar: Was the subsequent acknowledge
mcnt supposed to he contained Ia the letter of
the appellant to the appellee, evidence under
the state %, the ploadIngs in the case, and Sec
londly, was the letter II sufficient acknowlcdr.
lmcni, under the statute, 10 take the ease ont Of
ITS operation. We viii take mp the questions
IN the order they have been presented. |, is I'M
portan, 10 examine how this question would TX
disposed of under the decisions made in the
common law courts: and, M onr statute is not
materially different from the English statute of
2lst James l., chap. II, $. g.. only ours pro-
,yidng for the bur intervening AT the expiration
OF four years, and the English statute of six
wears, from the accrual Of the cause OF action
To inquire how the statute Was taken adyan.
taEe of in the courts "t England, II viii lee
muro necessary to look into tho7r authorities :.
because the statute ct limitations o, most of
the states has been borrowed from the statute
oi James, and the decisions of the courts, in
tlios, states, have followed the English author
tiles. In Ind Saunders y. %. note ii, m The cas,
of I!odsdcn rs iarrilgc, We find the following
remarks by Sergeant Williams
And, indeed, at first 1t was not considered
necessary Tor TIA, defendant to plead this statute;
| for, m Trinity Term, Cmolus J. which was
soon after the making Of the net, motion was
mad. IN arrest oil Judgment on assnuips'I mat
the promise was alleged IN TIE declaration 10 he
MADE b',ohd Tue htie iihnea ny INC statute
Ana al Inc courts hcld, NAV II II appear ny inc
paih'lli own 9h"Wlhs' 'ha' 'l' aet'o" - MOI
hfough, WITHIN me uhc limited ny Tue statute
ne cannot MAINTAIN us h,ton "i, " t'c '"u
tract IN assninpsi'' or a'b'' be alleged 10 De
WITHIN The li,1e' nut on h"n-asSnn'p'' of non
@0K Picai,d II appears IN eNhl.h.e 'ha' 'h' con
trart WAS Beyond me hii''o" uie, ,h' "cu"n