The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-06-05

e. and are aliens, subjects of Gree
v Britain. James Hanrick, their ance
q tor. was also an aline and died such l
l. 1875. John Hanrick, brother t
i James, though whom they ais
v claim in part was an aline, and died
: such in 1871. Edward Hanric
whom both parties claim was a citiZe
t of Alabama died intestate with
q out children or their descendants i
' 1865. E. G. Hanrick, the nephew Q
: Edward, at the time of the latter
r death was citizen of the Unlte'
. Philip Hanrick who died befor
, his brother Edward. Appellee claim
an interest in tine land. SO appellees
Branch and Sergeant, claim an inter
est through Mrs. OBrien, a sister o.
Edward Hanrick.
A demurrer was sustained to the
petition on the ground that appellants
were aliens and could not take by In
heritance at the time of the death OF
Edward Hanrick, in 1865. The ruling
of the court sustaining the exception
to the petition is assigned as error.
This case was before the supreme
court in 1880 upon the same question
and was there reversed and remanded d.
See Hanrick VS.. Hanrick "a Tex. 101.
The opinion of Judge Watts, now
adopted by the supreme court, holds:
The act of 1854 must be considered as
enlarging, rather than restricting the
right of aliens to take and hold land
in this state; that it is cumulative
and not restrictive in its operations;
that after its passage as before, an alien
could take defeasable title by 1nheri-
lance, without regard to the law upon
| that subject in force in his govern
ment; but where by the laws of his
government an alien takes an infeas-
able title by inheritance, so by virtue
of this enactment he can take and
hold in the same manner.
1t follows states the opinion, that
upon the death of Edward Hanrick,
his real estate in Texas vested as fol-
lows: One-fourth in E. G. Hanrick by
an indefeasable title; one-fourth in
James Hanrick by defeasable title,
but which was rendered indefeasable
by operation at law upon the passage
of the act of 1870 by the British par
lament; one-fourth in John Hen
rick by defeasable title which was In
the same way rendered indie
feasible, and one-fourth in
Mrs. O'Brien by defeasable
title, which was also rendered indie
feasible in the same manner. Upon
the death Of John Henrick in 1871,
his real estate here vested as follows:
Is to his brother James Hendrick; i
in his sister Mrs. O'Brien, and q in
his nephew E. G. Henrick. And upon
the death of James Henrick in 1876,
his real estate was vested in the same
manner as if he had been a citizen,
that is in his children and their de-
scendants.
The judgement of the lower court
Is reversed and the cause remanded.
COURT OF APPEALS.
The following cases were decided
yesterday:
Affirmed-Ex parte J. w. Barber
vs.. state, from Limestone county; New
York Life Insurance Company, from
Grayson Co.'s. w. Ogle VS.. State, from
Hill county; III. & T. G. R'y Co., VS..
Martha J. Hollis, from Grayson coun-
ty; Cora Mcmahon VS.. State, from
McLennan county; James P. Bates
ct al. VS.. J. F. Evans & Co, from
Denton county.
Dismissed-James Jackson VS..
CucbOC, 1lOIu SO1Cll1dA COuAby.
Reversed and remanded-Johnson
vs.. State, from Hopkins county;
Scheubert s. Hochstader VS.. S. II.
Holcomb s. Bro, from Denton county;
Carter Brothers & Co. VS.. Wise Coun-
ty Coal Company; Joseph n. Haney
VS.. j. I'll. Milken, from Parker county;
Martin Brown q Go. vs.. A. j. NIL
burn, from Montague county
Tn ha of IL
from Coleman county, the conviction
was for playing cards. In the record
say the court, opinion by Judge Hurt,
we find two errors fatal to the judg-
ment:
1. There is no plea by the defen-
dant.
g. The Indictment alleges that de-
PENDANT did unlawfully play at game
of cards in a public place, to-wit: in
the room back of the Gilt Edge Sa-
loon-Held: Where the playing occurs
in or at any other public house or
place, not mentioned in the code, the
facts constituting it public house
or place must be alleged.
Because of want of plea, and defec-
tive indictment the case is dismissed.
Hurt j.
In the case of johnson VS.. State
fir ON Hopkins county, johnson was
convicted of arson. A statement of
the facts was prepared presented to
the judge for his approval within ten
days, but was disapproved by the
judge; and no statement was made
and approved by him. There being
no fault of appellant in tQis, the judg-
ment is reversed. Hurt, J.
In the case Of Barber VS.. State, from
Limestone county, the appellant was
indicted and charged with the murder
of Joe Lee Wood, and having surren-
dered himself made several apphca-
tions for bail, which were refused.
The application is for habeas corpus.
There being no such statement of
facts as can be considered by the
court the Judgment is affirmed. Hurt,
j.
In the Cora Mcmahon case Cora
was fined $3.50 for aggravated assault.
Judgment affirmed.
In the Ogle case, from Hill county.
Ogle, with others, was indicted for
shooting and killing Allen and Will
liam Sans, who hadtgone to Waxa-
hachie to sell some cotton. He was
convicted of murder in the second
degree and sentenced for ninety-nine
years. Judgment affirmed. WILL
son, J.
The following cases were decided
yesterday:
Affirmed-Wm. J. Kahn VS.. state
Ctwo casey. from Dallas county; VIVA.
.Hoster VS.. the state, from Brown
county; Tom Mahan VS.. tue state,
from Smith county; r. w. Porter VS..
state, from Travis county; Robertson
81 Breedlove VS.. state, from Robertson
county; Robert Terrell ct al. VS.. state,
from Bosque county; and Jas. Burr
VS.. state, from Frio county.
Dismissed-W. T. Stallworth, VS..
state, from Falls county.
Remanded-LemS Sanford VS.. state,
from Bosque county; John Harrison
VS.. state, from Brazos county; Jane
L. Turner VS.. state, from Parker
county; Pleasant Robinson vs.. state,
from Robertson county; Coofair, alias
Jackson, from Falls county; Sanford
johnson VS.. j. T. Moore, from McLen-
nan county; E. F. Davidson VS.. State,
from Falls county; Smith Barnes VS..
State, from Hill county.
Motions to dismiss appeal were
overruled in the cases of the city OF
| Dallas VS.. A. ]. Ross, and the Texas
Express company VS.. ]. w. Dupree.
Motions fur rehearlng were over
ruled in the cases of G. J. Makenson
vs.. State, from Travis county; Secun-
| 1s-s< A.A.