The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-04-17
THE COURTS.
INTERESTING DECISION BY THE
SUPREME COURT ON VALID
ITY OF DEEDS.
Case Without q Precedent in
the District COurt-DeV-
iltry Under Duress.
Krause Fails to Get a Verdict
for Damages, and the
aEry Discharged.

lees, ITOm ldTTduU COUNTY Ndllull
of deed. If the deed to Ragland, say
the court, was regular deed of con
veyance duly and legally executed by
the grantors named in it, and ac
knowledged properly by Mary Wis
rock privily and apart from her hus-
band, then the judgment below was
erroneous and must be reversed. If,
on the other hand, Mrs. w. had good
reason to suppose from all the facts
and circumstances surrounding the
transaction, and did suppose that the
instrument she was executing was
mortgage; or If through fraud she
was indu ed to believe that the instru'
/; ment did not convey her homestead
: the property described in it.
and these facts, OF either of them
were known to Ragland at the time,
or before he paid the consideration
the deed is of no effect as a convey
ahce of the homestead. The ignor-
ance as to the character of the instru
ment, or the fraud which brought its
execution must come with
the notice, either actual or con-
structive, on the part of the grantee
in order to avoid the deed, lift is prop
erly certified to by the officer taking
tie separate acknowledgment. Gates
VS.. Barmel, Texas and r. 146. Davis
VS.. Kennedy, So Texas DIG. To this
effect was the charge of the court be-
low, and the verdict reached by the
iury under such charge must stand if
there is sufficient evidence to justify
the instructions. The evidence in the
opinion of the court is 50 conflicting
A. L. Ink hut fhnU
clude that there is no error in the
judgement of the lower court. In
coming to this conclusion chief JUS
tice Willie, as the organ OF the court,
properly adds: at matters not that In
any particular case we would have
found directly contrary to what the
Jury did, from the facts brought be-
fore us in the record. We do not learn
these facts from the mouths Of the
witnesses. Perhaps If we did and
could see the manDer in which they
were examined and the circumstances
surrounding them at the time they
testified, we should agree with the
Jury and decide directly to the contra
nv to what we would if the same facts
come to us on paper alone. In this
case we cannot say that the verdict is
not sufficiently supported by the evil
Vence, or that it is so decidedly against
the weight of the testimony as to
warrant us in setting aside, Judge
ment affirmed. Willie chief justice.
A. 9. Giddings ct al. VS.. George Will
liams, appellee; from Ellis county;
Judgment affirmed. Stayton, asso-
ciate justice.
Heirs of Francis D. Edwards, de-
ceased, VS.. w. I'll. Mounts, admins
traitor, appellee; from Denton county;
Judgment of the district court at
firmed, without, however, prejudice to
the rights Of the appellants to insti-
tute proper proceedings in the appro-
pirate tribunal to determine their
right to the fund realized from the
payment into the hands of the admin
istrator Mounts, of the life insurance
policy in question. West, associate
Justice.
Thomas Snyder ct al. VS.. Tillie D.
Ivers; from Montague; county; judg-
ment of the district court, so far as ii
awarded execution for costs against
the appellant, who was an administra-
tor, is held to be in error, and will be
so corrected; but in other respects the
Judgment will be affirmed. West, as
sociate justice.
johnson 81 Cross VS.. Richard Peter
son; from Lamar county; judgment
affirmed. Willie, chief justice.
DISTRICT COURT.
An interesting case transferred
FROM Williamson county was on trial
Yesterday in the district court.
In August 1877, Joseph r. Robbins
filed petition IN the 10th judicial dis
trict court OF Williamson ,unty,
Judge 4. b. Turner presiding, COM
planning of John J. Dimmitt and rep
resenting that in July 1877 pia'ttif
for a valuable consideration loaned
( defendant $500 to be paid back on
demand. Demand having been made
and payment refused suit was brought
to recover.
Defendant answers by general de-
NAL and further by pleas of duress
says that If he ever undertook or
agreed to pay plaintiff any money as
plaintiff alleges, but is denied by
defendant, it was when he, defendant,
was in duress and held in unlawful
custody and in great fear of losing
his life by two men unknown, who
were armed and threatened to Kill de-
PENDANT, whereby defendant was rem
dered incapable of entering into a
valid contract or make binding
promise. tits further alleged that by
procurement of plaintiff said men as
saulted defendant and threatened to
take his life unless he paid them q
large sum of money; that while said
two men were thus holding him in du.
ress, plaintiff handed them an enve-
lope or package pretending that
it contained $500 In mon.
ey and that he was paying
it to said two men as ransom to Sc
cure the release of defendant, when In
fact the package did not contain any
such sum of money, and if it did il
was not given IN good faith as a ran
som for defendant, but was given tt
plaintiffs confederates and Cocoon
spirators who were assisting plaintiff
in his wrongful and fraudulent efforts
to deceive defendant and make hin
believe that the defendant had beeI
attacked by robbers, and that plaintiff
had actually and through proper mo
tives given them $500 as ransom
for defendants life. Defendant con
tends that plaintiff as co-conspirato
is not entitled to recover any amoun
promised under duress.
Robbins's statement puts rather
counter Lace upon Iu6 d1ldlf, W A1dh
it appear that Dimmitt ouly pretendet
to be robbed as stated to get the none!
from him. They had started on tril
tomake land trade, and exchange
some lands which they were goinl
to examine. Dimmitt, he says, wa;
quite concerned about Roberts leav
ing any money at home, asked hin
how much he had, and suggested tina
he should bring it with him. 1t wa
first understood that they should g,
alone, but when they got ready. Dim
mitt took his son, Clyde Dimmitt
with him. While in camp on tn
way, two men rode up and wanted t.
stay all night. Dimmitt had advises
Robbins before this to put his none
in the box of the hack. One of tn
two men ordered Dimmitt to throv
ND his hands, and the larger man o
the two seized Robbins and pointed
pistol in his face. The one assaultln
Dimmitt called to the one holGin
Robbins to come and search Dimmit1
Robbins made grab, he said, for tn
pistol the smaller man had draw
upon Dimmitt, but failed to get II
Robbins, so he says, was finally al
lowed to speek to Dimmitt in whis
per. when he told Dimmitt he coul
use the money. Dimmitt offered tn