The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-06-28

thej owner of the Aguirre eleven
league grant, against John Caya-
naugh, one of the settlers. The
questions decided involved the title
to nearly fifty thousand acres of
choice land in Williamson county.
now occupied by between fifty and
one hundred families, cultiya:ing 1t.
The opinion was delivered by the
Hon. B. ii. Bassett, one OF the special
judges, Chief .Justic Willie and AS
sociate Justice West being disquali-
fled from sitting in the case.
OPINION.
T.. q. Hanrick VS.. John Cavanaugh;
from Williamson county.-This is Il
suit of trespaSs to try title brought
by the appellant Hanrick against
the appellee Cavanaugh. The cause
was tried by jury and resulted in Il
verdict and judgment for the de-
PENDANT, from which the plaintiff APP
peals. The plaintiff claims title by
by mesne conveyance under a con-
cession for eleven leagues of land EN-
bracing the premises in controversy
granted by the government of Goa
hula and Texas; the final title to
which was extended ON the 22d of
October, 1888. Only one hundred
and sixty acres are involved
in this CONTROVERSY which the
defendant claims under pre-
emption survey dated Deem
Der 18th, 1874, and among other
defenses he filed an affidavit impeach-
ing the grant to Rafael de Aguirre
for forgery in the final title.
The jury found a general verdict
for the defendant and under instruc-
itions from the court to return Il spe-
cal verdict on the issue made us to
the genuineness of the title to Aguir-
re found that it was in fact forgery;
and the principal question discussed
in the briefs and arguments of coun-
sci relate to the genuinneSs of this
instrument. The verdict of the jury.
if supported by the evil
plaintiffs right to recover, unless the
court has committed some error to his
prejudice in the giving or refusing of
charges, or in the admission or eXclu-
sion of evidence. The first
uucSIlOh pISoCllCCu IcldOtS W
the sulliciency of the evidence to
support the verdict declaring the
grant TO Rafael de Aguirre forgery
The plaintiff introduced in evidence
certified copy from the general
land Office of translation of the
original grant, consisting of
the application for the land,
the reference to the empressarios for
their consent to a selection of the
land within their colonial enterprise;
their consent; the selection of the
land and its survey by the colony sur
veyor; the return of the lield-noteS,
and the extension of the final title.
The survey embraces ten leagues on
the Gabriel, now in Williamson
county, and one league on Cow bayou,
now in Falls county. These instru-
ments were on their face regular and
sufficient prima facie to vest title in
the grantee to the eleven leagues of
land embraced in the grant.
This statement is made sub
ject to the qualification that while the
name of Rafael de Aguirre appears
elsewhere in the grant, the name of
one Perfeeto Valdez appears us the
grantee in the grantig clause
of the final title. This
court has heretofore, however, in
passing upon this same title. in Han
rick VS.. Jackson, 80 Tex II, treated
this instrument, as ON ITS FACE, a
grant TO Raphael de Aguirre, and we
see no reason TO question the correct.
ness of that ruling.
The application for the concession
upon which this grant to Rafael de
-Aquirre purports TO be issued, was
made in single Instrument by
three parties, to-Wit f.: Jose Maria de
Aguirre, Rafael de Aguirre and Tomas
de la Vega, and the concession which
was also in a single instrument, was
attached to the title of another of the
parties, and an unauthentic copy only
was embodied in the title of Rafael de
Aguirre but that circumstance was
in Hanrick VS.. Jackson properly held
not to affect the validity of the grant.
In support of the issue rendered by
his affidavit of forgery, the defendant
from the archives of the
general land Office the original of the
grant, under which the plaintiff
claims, with Photographic copies of
the same and parole evidence relating
thereto, from which it APP
DedIS iUdb vi
erasures, alterations and interim
cations in material portions of the
final title, having been made since it
was originally written. The name of
Rafael de Aguirre is written over
some some other name, apparently
that of Perfecto Valdez. The recital
of the date of concession has been al
tered by writing the 14th June, 1880,
over some other date, apparently the
18th July, 1880, while the words "and
the I'd of May of the past year" have
been interlined. The locative call
has been changed by writing the
words San ,Javiel or San Gabriel over
other words, apparently the
BraZos river, while words land the
Cow Bayou have been interlined.
The mode of making the alterations
in the name of the grantee, in the
recital of the date of the concession
and of the locative call on the San
Gabriel was generally though not
uniformly to erase by scratching out
the original word or words except
such parts of them as might be used
in forming the substituted words.
The work If done with the design to
conceal the alterations was not very
skillfully performed, but the altera-
tions would scarcely attract attention
on casual reading ofthe instrument,
The words interlined, and those sub
stituted, but not those erased, are
noted in the emendation clause at the
foot of the instrument, and above the
signatures of the Alcalde and the as
sisting witnesses. The handwriting
of the emendation clause, though
smaller and rather more clearly writ
ten than the body of the instrument
yet bears general similarity to it;
but there is some conflict in the opin-
ions of different witnesses as to wheth-
er both are in the same handwriting.
at is not denied by the defendant
that the signature of the Alcalde Lee
sasseur and those of the assisting
witnesses Givens and PEBBLES are gen.
uine. The charge of forgery
is predicated on the idea
that the erasureS, substitutionS
and interlineations were made
and the emendation clause added af-
ter the instrument had been signed
and issued, whereby a final title, orig
inaliy extended to Perfecto Valdez,
for lands on the BraZoS river, has
been made to read rs if extended to
Rafael de Aguirre for lands on the
Gabriel and Cow bayou. The papers
connected with this title show that
Samuel NJ. Williams, who was assocl-
ated with Austin in the colonial en-
terpEise within the limits of which
the grant was located, acted as attor-
ney for Aguirre in soliciting the con-