The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1873-10-02
synopsis OF Opinions Delivered By she
supreme Courr or Texas.



Supreme Court or Texas
AUsTIN, September %. 1878.
No. 1115.-C. W. Henderson '. The State
Ellis. He who would impeach a witness
By proving his statements made elsewhere,
must first lay a proper basis by cross exalni-
nation. II . written charge was necessary,
this court VIII not presume-in the absence
of any objection by defendant, and Of .
statement Of facts or bill Of exceptions, and
when the record recites the fact that the
court did charge the iury-that the charge
was not written The presumption Is, If
done at ell, it was properly done.-Judg-
ment affirmed.
No, 1701.-Es Farfe William Beard ION
petition for Aabeas corpus. Art. 1851,
Paschal's Digest provides that if judgment
be not rendered during the term at which
the trial takes place, judgment may be
rendered at the next succeeding term Of the
court, unless new trial has been granted
or the judgment suspended, ETC.; but moth
ing in that or any other article limits the
power of the court to the next succeeding
term; and there is no sound reason for such
limitation, but the judgment may be entered
at that or any other succeeding term. If
this court, unobservant of the fact that
there was ne final judgment in the court be-
low, entered an order reversing the judg-
ment of the district court and REMINDING
the cause, that order was c0ram non iudice
and void, because without a final iudg-
ment this court had no Jurisdiction to make
any order but a dismissiOn of the appeal
Writ referred and applicant remanded.
No. 114L-The State V. Mariana Garcia
-Bexar. A penal statute need not purport
to be an amendment Of the penal code; but
every enactment of the Legislature which
defines in plain language an offense, and clear
" affixes to such offense its proper punish
ment, must be regarded as a valid penal
law, whether it have any reference to the
code or not. The act Of May %, 1871, Ito
encourage stock arising, ETC., does not con
template proceeding by indictment, but
by qui tam action, because One-half the pen
atty goes to the Observation-Disclosures af.
firmed.
No. G6s.-Marks Wilson, ez parte-
Robertson. In this case there was no trial
by jury, nor verdict of conviction of any
offense for which justice of the peace can
by law be removed from Office, and the pro-
ceedings are therefore void.-Judgment re-
versed and case dismissed.
No. S24.-Josephine Allen v. w. r.
Baker--Harris. While this court has uni
formly held that contracts based upon pay
ment in Confederate money, or tainted with
Cofederate money considerations, would not
be enforced by the courts of this State, ii
has also held, (and no reason appears fol
changing the ruling) that those who have
voluntarily executed their contracts of that
character, would be left precisely where
they have placed themselves gmeni
affirmed.
No. 733.-James Nolan V. G.. w. & J,
Read-Grimes. The laying out of a towr
upon rural homestead does not necessarily
change its character as a homestead, which
still attaches to so much as the owner
chooses to retain in his own possession
Judgments obtained against the owner dc
not become liens upon the lots or blocks Sc
retained; and such lots or blocks, if after
wards sold by him, are not liable to execu
ten upon such Judgments. -Reversed anC
remanded. Injunction perpetuated.
No. 144S.-Ann NJ. Malone ct al v. Juliu,
Kaufman-G Galveston. 1t the vendee of ,
homestead borrows money from third per
son to pay off the notes given for the pur
chase money, giving him new notes and
deed of trust on the property to secure them
and thereby relieve the homestead of tn,
vendors lien, the lender of the money doe
not thereby become subrogated to the RICH
of the vendor to subject the homestead t,
the payment of the purchase money
though if, instead of lending the money t.
the vendor to pay the notes, he had bough
the notes from the vendor, the vendors liel
would have Injured to him, as an incidenet,
the notes. The vendors lien is not tn
creature of contract, but is an incident t.
contract for the purchase of land, grow
ing out of it by operation of law; ant
though the parties to the deed of trust abov
mentioned, intended and attempted to Civ
to that contract the force of the vendor
lien, it was not in their power to do so. Tn
fact that the value of the property is NOR
than is permitted by the Constitution in al
case, which is simply suit to foreclose tn
vendors lien on the property occupied as
homestead and remanded.
No. 570.-Joseph San Roman V. Mari
Ant. de la Tuna-Cameron. 1.-THE beare
hereof is going through these parts witt
the object of purchasing mule stock, he ha
deposited in my hands the sum of clever
thousand one hundred ($11, 1907 dollars
which sum l hold subject to his order
Held that the above is as we'll letter o
credit, as a certificate of deposit; and j
an instrument be SO worded, that perso
of ordinary business understanding Nigh
reasonably be deceived by it, then tn
maker of the instrument would be boun
in equity to meet the consequences of hi
own negligence and folly. He who trust
most, must suffer most.-Judgment affirmed
No. 1592.-W. II. Hamman v. w. Keis
win--Robertson. A quit claim or deed Q
release of all his rights, title and interest
purports to convey, and does convey n
more than the present interest of the grant
or. One holding quit claim deed canno
be regarded as a bona tide purchaser withou
notice. A party who desires to be regarde
as an innocent purchaser, must show:
That he was bona fde purchaser; 2, This
he purchased without notice, actual or cor
structiye; and g. That ne paid the purchas
money; and this, independent of any recits
in the deed. A quit claim purchase froI
the heirs of j. P. can set up, or resist n
equities which j. p himself, if living, coul
not set up or resist; if, therefore. in a dee
made by J. p. to another, in pursuance an
execution of certain title bonds given b
him, amistalxe has occurred, the quit clail
purchaser cannot resist the correction
the mistake by a court of equity, any mol
than ]. P himself could do so, if living
1t was not error to admit parol evidence /
explain the ambiguity crested by the diffe
ence between the title bonds and TIE deeC
which should have corresponded with then
Judgment affirmed.
No. I463.-Houston and Texas Centr.
Railway Company v. The State of Texas
Harris. Failing to establish the who
claim, plaintiff below was not entitled I
damages. -Judgment reversed and r
formed.
No. 1535.-Flint & Chamberlain v. J. !
Philpot ct al. Navarro. The vendors lie
goes with the notes given for the purcha,
money, in whatever hands they be founI
It cannot be created by contract, but is a
equitable lien which attaches to the Ian
sold unless waived by the taking of oth'
security. A purchaser from an assign.
in bankruptcy stands in no better att
tude than the bankrupt himself
party who acquires from the vendt
the original notes for the purchase none.
giving his own notes in lieu thereof, wit
an agreement that those latter notes sha
/ ,,,.o,-oeo fsor r.r,or, "a lend ss lion