The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-08
NEWS BY SPECIALS.
Austin.

tine departments over the proDaDlc cOhse-
ouence of the supreme court decision in the
Steele case, by which IL is established that
the salaries of officers fixed by law cannot
be changed by the appropriation acts. un
der his ruling nearly all the chief clerks
have been drawing too much salary since
1879, while the superintendent of the
asylums drew too little salary in 1879 and
1880. 1t will be impossible, OF course, to
make the officials disgorge the surplus, but
the comptroller will no doubt be governed
by the courts dession.
Five United States convicts four stage
robbers, and one postoflice-thief, were for
warded to-day to the Chester prison, Hi
nois. Deputy Marshal Mcteriand went IN
WAYNE, the black fiend of the Decker
creek outrage, was identified by Mrs.
Wynell He acknowledges having assaulted
the lady, but said he did not accomplish his
purpose. Another white lady, the wife of
section. hand on the Central, ide tuned MN
as having attempted to outrage ker two
weeks ago.
In the case of the butchers in the mayors
court for the violation of the city ordinance,
in conducting stalls inside of the prescribed
limits, the jury disagreed and were dis
charged. =.
a report is current here that Judge
Henry's declinaton to shake the apples
there has been strong disposition devel-
oped in east Texas to instructth the delegates
to vote for Governor Roberts.
SYNOPSIS OF OPINION IN THE INTERNATIONAL
CASE.
State of Texas VS.. International u Great
Northern railroad. The first ques-
ton is whether the act for the
relief of the consolidated Inter
national g. Great Northern railroad com
pany was so far inconsistent with the origi,
nal act Incorporating, the international
railroad company Especial laws called SEES,
sion twelfth legislature, sections 1CO and
and 1922 so as to operate to the repeal Of
the same to the extent that it prescribes q
new and different condition as ground
for declarations of forfeiture. Sec
ond, if SO, what was the eheft Oh a
last passed to build forty miles OF road
each year. or eighty miles in two years
Did it forfeit the charter of the company,
or simply the land grant? And if the Latter.
was forfeited, was it for that portion only OF
the said road which it then failed to con,
struct, or for the whole extent OF the road
not then constructed? AS to the repeal of
the original act, the subsequent relief acts,
90 far. are inconsistent; but. when, as in
present cases, the express words OF repeal,
SO far as the two statutes are inconsistent,
are COnUdlUeu III JIG supoC4uShV oe"eueSi
then there is no room for construc-
ton, save as to the question OF conflict;
and in so far as the two statutes materially
conflict, the latter must prevail. This re-
lief act was one of compromise. Being an
act of compromise in which the concession
before made on both sldes couiu receive
liberal construction by the courts, it is not
reasonable to suppose that the legislature
would have arbitrarily deprived the COM
pany of the very material aid provided in
the original act, and that too after the COM
pany on the faith of it had built 2OO miles
of road and which aid was one OF the main
inducements to enter upon construc-
ton, and still hold the company to
The strict letter of the original contract as
to the rapidty with which the road should
be built. Neither is it reasonable to sup
pose that the state intended to say. TO the
company that you shall have certain dona-
tions of land and which shall be paid tor
every completed section of ten miles, If you
will build forty miles ofroad each year, and
vet when the company has done this then
not only TO forfeit this promised aid already
earned, but also the very corporate exist
.ence of the company, because 1t had not
built seventy-five instead OF forty
miles. Certainly such double forfeit.
ure could not have been intended if
only one of the torfeitures could be
demanded it must be that contained in the
compromise act which in express terms re-
pealed the original so far as they were in
consistent, although they should be held to
n reasonably strict account to carry out the |
purposes and objects of their creation; IN
loss il clearly appears that the railroads
have forfeited their charters the courts
should give construction to the law which
would keep alive rather than kill. Held, that
this section of the compromise act repealed
section 43 of the original act and was substi- |
tuted therefor so far as they pertained to
the time within which the road
should be built that under
the law as it now stands 1t was not intended
that the failure of the company to build at
least forty miles of road every year, or
eighty miles every two years, should work |
the forfeiture fits charter, but OF the land
grant only On the second section we
ave doubts. but in view, however, OF the |
let that it is reasonable to presume the
gslature Intended that the road should |
built so as to give, as soon as practicable,
rs benefits along the whole line, and fur |
tler, thal The court below has adiucSed !
that the failure to build as much as eighty |
miles of road within any two consecutive
wears would forfeit the land grant upon all
the line of road not then built, and that II
does not clearly appear that this judgement
is erroneous therefore held correct. Al |
firmed. 30 inner.
COURT OF APPKALs.
Prather VS.. State; from Bosque county, |
reversed and remanded, by wilson
Pague VS.. State; from Franklin county; re-
versed and remanded, by Wilson. Donahue /
vs.. State; from MeMullen county; reversed |
and remanded, by Hurt. johnson John:
SON VS.. State; from Denton county; reversed 1
and remanded, by Hurt. Poston VS.. State;
from Trinity county; reversed and ~
mapded, by Hurt. keykendall W. state
,om Burnet county. Ed Hart vs.. State,
from Wheeler county; affirmed. Clark vs..
State; from Wilson county; affirmed HUFF
man VS.. State: from Bell county; affirmed,
by Wilson. Dreyfus VS.. State from
Dallas county; submitted on brlef
for both parties. Whitaker VS.. state
from Denton county; submitted
on brief for both parties. international q
Great Northern railroad company vs.. Pope;
from Comal county; submitted on brief Tor
appellant. Muldrew VS.. State; from MI
lam county, three cases; submitted on brlei
for-stste. Scott vs.. State; from Robertson
county, admitted on brief for state. Kim
bic vs.. Stae; from Gaudaloupe county
submitted % brief for both parties. VIII
lie vs.. State: frOm Ellis county; submit
ted on brief for state. Taylor vs..
State; from Clay. county; motion 70
dismiss submitted. Rice vs.. STATE
from Falls county; motion 70 dismiss
submitted. Thomas ct al vs.. State from
Tom Green county, two cases; submitted
on brief and oral argument by both par
ties IOvelady q HsmsOn W. Browning a |
Co.; from johnson county; motion 20 Win
draw transcript granted Forester ".
NcNutt It al; from Washington county; /
motion 70 withdraw transcript granted. /
Keppor W. State; from Tom Green county. /
motion 70 withdraw transcript granted /
Texas Trunk railroad company vs.. NOLAN;
from Dallas county; an med on GER
tifcate. Weaver vs.. Frigate. from Dali
Las county: affirmed on certifcste. Adams |
A 90. " Duggan, Orcrevs A Co; from !
GaudaloupecJun Report ofcom mission
en- ALLOTTED and judemeBtafhrmed. Miller
" CITY Bank d Snermani rom Grayson I
corfutv- rrr,orf Of commissioners adopied ]
s .--s-..-i Ii-rufu-ad Walsh " Effor /