Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-02-14
THE HIGHER COURTS.
Decisions Rendered at the Galveston Sit
ting of the supreme Court.

ting of the supreme Court.
Beaumont Pasture Company vs.. Preston 4
Smith, appeal from jefferson. Suit being fot
land, Preston & Smith clalmed under deed pur
porting to be from Butler, original gran,cc, 10
L, d Johnson, dated September 10, s40 Upon
/ the paper there is proof for registration by Two
| OF the subscribing witnesses before tho chiei
justice OF shelby county, and a red stain which
may be the betic of a seal The certificate OF
proof Is dated November s. 1910, and aa. re.
corded March %, 1891. The instrume I Is worn
and In Appearance aged. Preston Il Smith pro
| duce 1t and prove that they obtained II from
tue party therein named as yendee The name
Of tn, grantee and the date appear TO be 10 DIFF
| ferent ink and writing, and probably at diff.
fereni time, from tho body OF the instrument
| Experts testified that the date had been
altered. Held, that In making the proof upon
which such aper gcta to the jury, the party
Offering IL proceeds exp rte. If, without con
sideriDg any other evidence than that he pro
duces, there Is enough to raise AN issue oi fact
upon the genuineness of the document, it Is
! proper for the court 10 allow the pa ,er to 20
| b. fore the jury, and the Issue OF fact is then
determined by them alter hearing all tn testl.
mony on both sides 40 Tex, 1914; Id. lis; /
1reenl Ev., sec. ~. The preliminary proof
before the jnt ge e merely an earnest OF the
Issue 1t wonld alwa 8 be proper to admit the
paper where the proof Is sufficient, IL none OPP.
posing Il Is offered, to sustain a verdict l..
favor OF the geuuipeness of the | strument
In some cases 1t might be propc to admit II
on less than this The court In this case did
! jury.
Inc court may instruct the jury that a fact
proved on one side, with no con 1icting testi-
mony on the ,ther Ia an establishe fact. But
when,though there may be no conflict upon the
circums tances In evidence, their eufliuiency TO
establish another fact Is an issue before the
Jury, the court ought not to PR jud CO their de
te mination by ling them what might be
considered prima facie case. This is liking
the weight of portion of the evidence and
Is an unwarrantable invasion of the jurys
province.
certified copy from the records of JEFF rson
county of the testiuson'o or second orig nal OF
an authentic act of sale from the original
grantee bel, re judge of the first instance
december 10, 1888, proof having been made Of
loss OF The protocol, was imp operly rejected as
evidence OF title of fendant. such record Is
with the pealing act of 1860 Up. dig AR .502l).
Reversed and remanded. opinion by Robert.
son, j.
". +, Neal ct al. VS.. II. G. Bartleson ct al,
from Q 'loi adv. r.. X. Bartleson was entitled
BY re idence Texas to grant OF land from
the state Of one league and laber lie died In
another state never having applies for o OBJ
children living, in the state of Connecticut.
John Henry Brown, on his application, was
grant d tiers OF guardianship for the children,
bis wife beng the only relative of the children
living in Texas AS guardian, he obtained a
certihcale for the land by special
act Of the, legislature. having failed
10 ,ss MAKE ne ne od nf,cessay proof TO.
the suggestion of relatives of the children In
Connecticut, he asked tor and obtained an or.
der OF sale from the probate court, made sale
At what was proved to be the market value of
he certificate at the time, reported the sale to
the court which was confirmed. Held, that
the right Of the parent to grant of land from
the stat hough neither real nor persona
property In esse, was nevertheless an in chate
! RI ht to get that quantity of land out of come
part OF The public domain, and to MAKE 1t as
| sumo the character OF personal or real proper
II wa necessary that a certificate should be
obta ned Such right was property az.
sets Of the minors estate and subject TO adj.
administration through Il guardianship The
| property had 1t. situs In Tex,s and any
county In the state had jurisdiction to emit r
tain the application and TO grant the guard an
! snip. This being true the order OF sale the
sale, I'D continuation of sale Of the certificate
| Invested he title OF the minors to the Ger III.
cate, or TO any lan's subsequently located by
ion ny Stayton,J.
Galye ton, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway
Company ys, a. Corley appeal from Colorado.
iSs - c ws se ths ny repeated decisions Of
damages for the destru, ton of yege.
au.n growing upon land is its value
a. inc TIME OF being des royed, Tho conr
below Gu not err In refusing TO nsruct that
lhe damages recoverable for burning the
grass in the pasture was the difference in
me value OF the land before and after the
The plaintiff would not necessarily have
be,n compensated for the loss of his grass by
having returned TO him what 1t cost to Drive
10 range some miles distant the $50 cattle he
was pastuIing upon he land at the time the
era a,, was destroyed. Aillmed. Opinion by
| Willie, q. j -
NorE-This Is in conflict with the decisions
OF the court of appeals
IL, W; oneka Vs. Chas Riley ct al appeal
| from Colorado
ianu was laid ut fer public road by The Jury
OF view, an was present In the commissioners
court when the act of the jury was confirmed,
can not afterwards make objection that nc had
no nOtlce OF the rOceedlnga,
Inc law does not posliv, ly require that the
county surveyor shall accompany the jury IN
uesiRnallng me road, ana his absence or non.
par'icinat on In their action will not render
men, ,e, Illegal or void. Affirmed. Opinion by
w 4. Derris VS.. j. S. Brown & ca anneal
fr m Galveston. -FF
SUIT on an iron-clad note In the power of
attorney authorizing any attorner at law
ment wAi for s shc mat and Sniess iadg
blank | II for thu name of the partv
LOT 10, whom the process is to be waived, yet the
De waived for the maker of the note az ne was
the only person against whom process could
Issue. Inc statute does not require that the
aSSS Sgl Ia o. service or waiver of process
shall DC IN writing The power of attorney
wwhich was part of the instrument sued ON was
hleu' ana thr JUDGMENT Is supported Affirmed,
onni Hani ~ ~ reused ON account of delay.
CONN y Douglas vs. l.. W. Cooper, appeal
n Il9m houston. Suit on note executed by
SSN.'i,act 40 agent OF AIRS. Douglas and her
daughter, TO Cooper for money loaned The
Issue was as 10 the authority Of Collins
70 Pima his principals for mon
~ borrowed for their account, ColiIns
as sole manager for Mrs. Douglas Conducted A
urge mercantile business, his agency being ~
me most general character. and note reduced
70 Writing Collins testified that Mira. Douglas
solu MN 70 manage the business as Thought
pesti nothii WAS said about borrowing money
| was 70 ma age the business as deemed best
,or thelr interest. thought IL necessary ia
borrow INC money. We have to do n large
ure1il nntinest IN this section and advance Ia
.ne farmers, ana business cannot be q arriei on
Without ~ There Is no substantial conflict on
tnls point. III Aas further shown that ali
amounts OF money borrowed and nsed In This
my ~ Oon,ns, was carried on the books of the
n nrttn, ana that the husband OF one OF the
pp,,,hnoipals was book keeper In their tmplol
Cther sums were borrowed in the same ~ny by
N.,ilhs and were not repndiated Held. that
eyery agency carries with II OF includes In II IA
a an inviueht all the powers which are necessary
"lpfuper or usual az means to effentunte the
4, ulpose Tor which It was creai cd unless Inc
anIISsIehee 81 such pow RS are expressly ex.
eiu .cu " the instrument creating .he agency
~ tne circumstances OF the business To ,gbIck
.ns agency relates, and the court AID not err In
ns,rn, 'S.ng "a this case; and in refusing to
, ,hhsLInet that unless Collins had EXPRESS an
.n11rltS 70 brrrow money for the PRINCIPAL thc
ION by stayton. y. St''''