Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-31

only title in himself, Dub thae uei .lJ
ant was guilty of the trespass chavgeu'
But IL has not been the PURPOSE 10 ,s,
lieve the plaintiff rom showing .tIe
i'm the identical land Claimed, nuV 9n.y
when the defendant mas answered w
the merits to relieve MN OF prorins
the trtspass. To ala IN ldentilcatloll,
appellant offered 70 reau III eviuc'IS
q certified copy OF tne ofiglhai. NV
notes Of the survey, Ihese were uI.s,
inally in the English, but nau uee''
translated into the spanish iaheuaEe'
and so incorporated III the ernh,..
This evidence was rejected, ostehsluls
on the ground that they ahleua,eu p 1,,e
actual grant by seVeIai uiVliVhs. 1n y,
held that 1t was, AT the carry PERU. y,
this grant Inc practlce 10 periiiiV Wv
making OF the survey before Tue eA'
tension OF the grant Hence tue coui y
erred. The charge OF Tue court i
unsupported 10y evidence inat li,e
error If directed 10 issues eitilclf
deed or deeds constituting tue.c,isi" ".
title have been duiy registered ~ .s,
sential to sustain me qeienNe oi NV
years llmitatoh' vi the REQUISITES VI
notice OF adverse possession W uutnoi
! ize the defense on nNe years liin't "a, ,
see Revised Statulues oI91i 90 leHaS
| 30. The CONSTRUCTION Oh W!itVeu III,
struments IA 70 thelr iegai ilect CONES ne,
peculiarly with'n the province Oh 'he
court, ana sucll issues s"ouiu NOV ne
submitted 10 the jury IL ieAas' o7o'
Reversed ana reiiahueu.
Atkinson vs.. ware, rom o %, .1.si'G'
county,-lhe ruie OF praclice 'i"cUlhe
the question OF burden OF PROOF, III
conflict OF title arising on ol 'Wo nue.
pendent mes upon tile sali!e iailu ny
virtue OF dlnerent ce,tliica'es' ~ suc-
cinctIy laiu uoWh III Vhe case VI w az
ments vs. Eggiestoh, 81 ieNas' o1'.
The pialntiI having Introduced III
evidence the patent, 10 liiahe ~
case whlch PFt"'h J"Gte euVlt'eu nun
to recover, u remained necessary ohly
To connect hinhseii win IL as the iesai
or equltaoie owner OF the lanu, anu
TINS ne ula op. me etiuelice III lii's
case SHOWS lilaI tile uelu NOTES uuuei
which defendants claimed were WIN
drawn from the general lahd Once l'I
the purpose OF oeinS recorded anu iihu
never ueeh returned, lhls Wouiu
operate iofteltuie OF liiat survey IN
der article dl9S iaschai Digest 10
show that the hein-notes hau oeeh
Withdrawn by uhauthofiHed parties,
the oH"S was on the delehuahts' II M
deed, under the circumstances, snch
proof even, long aiter me expiration rl
time allowed Tor The return OF held-
notes "llndfaWn from lhe Oh
nee would operate TO pro
trct the survey; Hence! charge
consistent with these doctrines OF III"
was not error. Section second OF arti-
Gle XIV OF the constitution OF 1916 IN
tended only to protect from subsequent
location aud survey titles which are
colorably valid grants or tues rom
the state, but not To SHIELD such AS
come wthir facts denounced as snf-
ticient to work vacation OF iormerap-
proptlaiions Affirmed upon report
OF Commissioner Walker.
Cagevs Meliurd ct ais, from -
county.-I'his case may be stated in
substance rs follows: Appellees sued
as heirs OF their deceased mother. Mrs.
w a. g., 10 recover one.half interest
il tract of land which at the time of
her death was the homestead OF her
self and her said husband, There was
no administration on the estate Of the
deceased wife. w, A. @. married a
second time and LEFT widow sur.
viving. The first wife left one minor
child. This minor had attained ma
jointly at the death Of w. A. q. AT
the death of the first wife the other
children we're not laboring under mi
nority disabilities. Administration
was had upOn the estate of w. 4 G.
The homestead was set apart to the
widow and her minor CHILD AT a
subsequent term of the county court
an order, recitlng that the widow had
abandoned the homestead, directed lis
sale. Among the debts for which it
was sold were three notes. represent.
ing debts OF the first marriage, and
We're renewed by w. A. G.. after the
death of the first wife to save, limita-
ton. The remaining debts represent.
ed the community of the second mar
riage. Judgment was for PLAINTIFF for
three-tenths of the land. The iudg-
ment WAS erroneous. The homestead
right would hav. attached, under the
decision in SIS Texas a03. but il elimi
mated from this case inasmuch as il
appears that it was abandoned by The
widow, aud it Ia nowhere pretended
that the children ever ATTEMPTED TO as.
sert their homestead right. Being
community it WAS responsible for
community debts. Reversed aud rem
dered for appellant.
Torrance w. j. Butler, sheriff, ct ais,
from Smith county.-This was
a suit for damages for
the wrongful levy of an
an attachment. The first error was
we'll assigned, viz: that the court
erred in refusing to allow the n,o;ntiT
tn nrnva that H. ,lTa.;a -