The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-05-12
synopsis Of Opinions or Commissions
crs of Appeals Adopted by supreme

ers Of Appeals Adopted by supreme
Court.
BASED upon reports of commissioners OF APP
Nichols OF al. VS.. Dibrell; appeal from
Guadalupe Suit of trespau to try title;
verdict and judgment for appellee; motion
for new trial ovsrruled, and appellant bring.
case before this court on appeal. Tue record
disclosss q paper purportiDg 70 be state
ment of facts, agreed 70 and signed by coun.
sci for both parties, but neither approved
nor signed by the judge who tried the case
1t cannot be considered by tho court, and the
appeal must be determined rs though nc
statement of facts whatever appeared in the
record, as there is no bill of exceptions show.
ing any part Of the evidence introduced upon
the Trial.
Among other charges the court instructed
the iury "that tho plaintiff had shown sufli-
Gent title to entille him to recover, unless
thew believed from the evidence that the con-
yeysnce made by Nichola TO his wife was
mad q IN good faith, for valuable considers
ton, md mol with intent to place the shme
beyond the reach of his creditors, etc.
By tho terms Of this charge the burden is
placed uron the wife to provo that the said
deed to her was made in good faith, for "a
valuable consideration, etc, whereas the law
is that tho burden is upon tbs party who at
tacks conveyance to show that it 10 frsudu-
lsnt, etc. Considering the same in connec-
ton with the pleadings, it seems an abstract
error that could work no injury to appellant
sufficient 10 warrant q reversal. Affirmed.
Watts, Com.
Ksmpmann ct al va Bonnet, sheriff, ETC.;
appeal from BexSr. This case arises under
the act of tho legislature of 1870, providing
for the establishment of a System OF public
free schools for the state of Te1aa." The
appellants sued out an Injunction restraining
the sheriff, ex.ofIico collector of taxes of
BeIar county, from collecting the taxes
assessed against them and other citizens I'M
dor the Aforesaid law. The injunction was
dissolved and ordered to stand over for trial.
Upon trial the court made its decree, m ain
tanning the previous dissolution of the i,iluc-
ton, and rendered judgment sqoinsi tho
appellants for the amount of AJAX levied
against each of them, from which Judgment
they appealed.
In the case of Willis vs. Owens, 43 Texas
Alb, in an exhaustive and very thoroughly
considered opinion by the present chief JUS
tice, the court held said act to DO unconsti!u-
tional and void. That decision has been
universally accepted by the bench and bar of
the stale ss final and conclusive of the ques-
lion. A proper disposition of this appeal is
to remove the judgment Of the court below
and for this supreme court to render judg-
ment perpetuslly enjoinng the collection of
said pretended tax. Watts, Com.
Strsmber ct sl. VS.. Walker; from Erath.
In thi, case there are no plesdings Of the.
plaintiff in the record; the clerk of the dis
trict court certifies that the original petition
for Injunction has been lest or mislaid, etc.
There is nothing in the record to indicate its
contents. The assignment of errors is not
signed by appellant nor by any counsel for
him. The law provides n mode for substi-
tuting lost records and papers, and if appel
liant hss not seen proper to avail himself of
its benefits he must content himself with the
necessary consequences of his naction, hence
we conclude that the judgment ought to be
ffirmed. Walker, Com.