Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-15
REPLY TO HOUSTON
IA Defense of the Appellate judges Of
Texas,
FAIBFIELD, TEX Mar b 9, 1855.


1pdges White and Wilson, and the COM
ynents thereupon by Mr.. Cummings.
Houston, in his TRADE against the Court
If Appeals, is not less correct than alb
suTo.
Judges White and Wilson is that they,
IN publishing reports of the opinions Of
the Court of Appeals, in civil cases, have
nslpsbly violated section Of srticle 5 of
our state constitution, which reads
thus: - In civil cases its Court
of Appeals opinions shall not be pub
Ighed unless the publication Of such
opinions be required by law" Does this
nrovsion prevent individuals from pub
fishing the opinions at their own ex-
pgnse? Was it not simply intended to
prsy nj the publication Of the civil opin-
ions of toe Court Of Appeals, st the ex-
pense Of the state, unless such pub
iicstion WAS required by law? Judges
White and Wilson reported these opin-
ions st their own expense, as their own
Individual enterprise, and are they to be
denounced therefor as violators of law
and SIS being ignorant of, or having e con-
tempt for the constitution which they have
sworn to protect7 Whoever contends for
such a tortured construction Of so plain g.
provision IN our constitution must needs
know less of constitutional Interpretations
than an e Jthetic dude does Of stellar con-
stellstiOns. The Court of Appeals had
passed upon many questions which had
never been before the Supreme Court3pr
sdiudicatiOn, and IL was therefore but
Justice to the profession that thssescases
should be reported, and there BEING no
law requiring their publication" at the
expense Of the state IS state
publication. judges Waite and
Wilson, by their individual enterprise,
favored the profession with them. 1t is
true that in some instances the opinions
of the Court of Appeals conflict with
those Of the Supreme court upon the same
subject, but the very fact If such COZ
flCLing opinions being published, calls
general attention to the conflict and
causes the disputed points to be settled
by legislative enactment. In the con-
6ictlrg csses cited by Mr.. Houston, the
Supreme court held that county courts
had jurisdiction TO foreclose attachment
liens on land, and the Court Of Appeals
= held to the contrary. These opinions be-
ing published called general attention 10
the conflict, and in consequence brought
about the subsequent enactment settling
the controversy.
After Mr.. Houston charges the
said Judges with q disregard Of
the constitution SO h1grant IS to
be without precedent in the Judicial
history Of all civilized countries and be-
fore giving US time to draw 3 long
breath, dives into details whereby he ex-
poets to show that said judges have
blown hot and cold in almost each and
every breath.
There ara two strange things about this
exposure % TO one at distance. First,
why were the slumhering pub ic per
migted by Mr.. Houston TO remain iguor-
ant Of the fact thst the Court of Appeals
were hourly SIS ping the foundations Of
our government until after Mr.. Houston
had lost the Conner case in
tho Court Of Appeals? Second, why
h:i Nj. Houston, in comparing the cases
in which NJ claims the court 50 often re-
verses itself, gwen SO little attention to
what has aud VIVA has not been decided
That he has been unjust, unfair, aud has
made egregjous blunders in endeayOring
to stata the cases l shall low show:
Mr.. Houston ssys that in Corners case
% CT. App SIS that the court cites
K4nnedy's case in c.. OF App 999 to
sustain 8 certain proposition and that
ksDnedy's case has not the remotest
bearing upon the Conner case, and then
with the pomposity Of village guild
nunc asks: "Why does the presiding
Justice descend to such shallow srtlfice
as 10 seek 70 Justify what is not justif-
Hble?" (ae is talking now Of that
Conner case which he lost and
but for which the world
Would in all probability have remained
long ignorant Of the attacks upon our
constitution by the Court of Appeals.)
Now as to the fact: There is simply 8
misprInt as to the volume in which Ken
nedY's case is to be found. 1t is not in
the h Court Of Appeals, page G20, SIS
cited, but is In the 18Th Court Of Appeals,
go, and more than that it is an authority
for the courts ruling in the world en-
Tightening Conner case. There is another
Kennedy case, and II is in the 9Th Court
Of Appeals, not on pHge 600, but en- page
5y', and has no applicability to the Con-
ner case, and was not cited il the Con-
ner case, cut Mr.. Houston instead of in
70 ming himself, "descends to such shall
10 " srtidCe as to seek to justify what is
not UNSUITABLE" Mr.. Houston complains
that IN Chester's case f23 CT. App ST.,
the court hel1 that psTol
evidence Of telegram was
inadmissible and in Corners case %
CT. App, SIS held that il was sdmisot-
Die. Now, in the Chester case the ques-
ton YVES as to the contents of telegram,
snd Of course psrol evidence was ms 1mjs-
siOle, except upon showing loss or de-
struCtion OF the original, but in Conner's
case there IVES no question IS to the con-
tents of the telegram, but the question
was simply whether any telegram had
been sent, merely as q Circumstance 60
ing to show The whereabouts Of the
sender. That there is q well recognized
distinction in admitting parol evidence to
show the contents Of q writing and not to
show the contents, but merely to show
the existence Of the writing, is not IN,
known to the lawyer Of six
months standing. And there can
be no question Of the correctness and
harmony of the rulings in the two cases
mentioned.
Mr.. Houston says that In Bells case
T20 CT. App. AS Judge Hurt decides that
IN cases of sei-defense the trial court
must charge the appearances Of danger
from the defendants standpoint, and that
in the Conner case Judge White destroys
tie ruling In Bells case and makes 8 de-
cision which authorizes the trial court to
read in cnsrge to the Jury copy Of the
Texas Sifsings. Every lawyer knows that