The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-05-27
CAPITAL CITY CULLINGS
A PROHIBITION BILL SENT up
Newly Discovered "Reminiscences Ofthe last
Legislative session-Important SUI
preme Court Deoision--Othe
State Capital News.
THEY SENT 1T sur"


quietly ooaed out that the bill correct
ing the defects and periecting the local
option law, passed by the Nineteenth
legislature, is not law at all, and is not
to be found in the acts of the legislature,
just issued. The bill originated in the
house, which body it passed. The sen
ate then passed 1t without amendment
and the official records show that til,
secretary announced the fact to the
house, and left the bill to be properly
enrolled and presented to the
governor Tor his signature.
The records further show thai
the house enrolling clerk received
the bill, but nothing can be found indi-
eating that IT was ever presented to the
governor. In truth, the governor never
saw the bill. IL is among the unfinished
business papers Of the house, deposited
In the office of the secretary of state at
adjournment, and has endorsements on
10 showing IL was received from the
senate to be enrolled by the house tor
presentation to the governor. 1t also
mas endorsed on II, in bold hand,
"sEND THIS UP"
The intent OF this imperative sentence
is not known, but one thing is certain,
the bill went "up" instead of down to
the governors Office to be signed by
him, and o mystery broods over the
affair Chat probably will nevor DO cleared
away. TIE same bill was spirited away
during tho Eighteenth legislature, and
vorily the way OF tho prohibition bill in
the Texas legislature Is hard one.
MORE SCHOOL CHILDREN.
The census report from MeXia shows
BIO children within the scholastic age.
THE STATESMAN"
Col. Gaines denies the rumors that the
Statesman is about to change hands, ON
the contrary he has just purchased a
tine improved Campbell power press
with folding attachment, aud Intends TO
improve the paper in every respect.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION,
In the case of the Western Union Tel
egraph company VS.. Foster, from Bexar
county, the supreme court TODAY held
that whore the sender took message TO
a telegraph Office and handed the same
TO n receiving clerk, who read It aloud
whereupOn 10 was discovered to contain
an error and the sender requested the
receiving clerk to correct the same and
insert tho missing word, and the clerk
I'D so, but in tho wrong place, that the
company was not liable aud no recovery
could be had against it.
LAND CASE,
The cnse OF the State VS.. Thomson,
| from Prestdio county, was submitted
to-day. 1t involves the question
whether q special deputy surveyor
could apply to a surveyor to purchase
! school land.
STATE SUPREME COURT.
supreme court affirmed: BET. Langly
ct al. VS.. WIS Carothers, from Burnet
county.
Jack Brown VS.. O. B. Hardeman
from Caldwell county.
! Reversed and remanded: O., Il. Col.
Inns VS., David Bullow, from Wichits
county.
International & Great Northern rail
road ct al. vs. Magdaline Brooks, from
| Frio county.
b. Il. Evans VS.. Lawson Smith q Co.
from Mitchell county.
Freiberg, Klein 4 Co. VS.. Elliott 4
| Wright, from Comanche county.
j. IL, and w. /. Rauth VS.. VIM. Cason
| from Runnells county.
Reversed and rendered for appellant
| Western Union Telegraph Co. vs. j, M
/ Foster, nom BeNar county.
II, d. Allen ~ Bro. VS.. G.. Melton, from
| Taylor county.
JEFF Slater vs. J, G. Neal, from Llanc
county.
reversed ana dismissed: William
Cameron & Co. VS.. Thomas Marshall al
al, from Mitchell county.
In tho case of the Houston, East and
West Texas railway VS.. j. o. Ross a
Co, from Polk, judgment was rendersd
IN this court in favor of appellant
for S22, 5000.
Certificate dismissed: Lasller Il Da.
Wis VS.. Miller, from Uvalde county.
Motions for rehearing oyerruled
Evans W.. Texas & New Orleans rail.
way from Harris county.
Brown VS.. Mcdonnell & Co, from San
| Sana county.
Motions for rehearlng submitted: w,
Z. Beard vs. Lyman Blum, from Fan.
min county.
r. p. Anderson VS., D. p. Boyd, from
! Ellis county.
Submitted on briefs for both parties:
| NJ. G, West VS.. Schneider Il Davis.
Ann Ross VS.. korHrump ct nj.
! j. M. Archoi w. Nolan q Co.
Houghton q Robinson vs.. d. G. Lind.
ley. i''''N'
On briefs aud oral argument for both
parties: The State Va. Is. a, Thompson'
NJ. koeneghoim vs., j. Miles ct al,