The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-05-22
/S29s IL March {

def1cA e3ZJb.I5. March 2,
1887, 70 d1.59; coupon 2-7,
$1109.F tate claims last three
items have been credited to
accoI next succeeding year.
HEIDI ibeen shown that both
of tf} -ts,had been made with
tax IAich were collected on
rollsl Sand for which sureties on
secof sAd were responsible, it
woq .s,s5t under facts of this case
hay Ssstablished liability of sureties on
frS bond. The claim is that money
wd appropriated to the credit of the
adj Dunt ending June 30, 1856, which
III law holds primarily applicable to
an account for which the sureties on
second bond was liable, that is the
account for year ending May 1, 1887.
If the default in one year is attempted
to be made good by the appropriation
to its payment of taxes collected on
next years account, and if the deficit
so produced in second account is in
turn discharged by the application of
moneys due on the next succeeding
account the default should be attrib-
uted to first account. II the last
be settled no harm accrues;
if not, then the payments properly APP
plicable to it must be so applied. Such
application necessarily produces de-
felt in second account, and gives the
sureties who are responsible for the
adjustment the right to have the pay
ments wrongfully appropriated to the
first withdrawn and applied as they
should have been in the first instance.
But in this case, if the account for the
year ending May l, 1887, was balanced
without drawing upon taxes charged
on account of succeeding year, the
sureties on second bond have no cause
to complain of any misappropriation
of tax moneys of that year. 1t was
their right to demand that when any
of such moneys were paid into the
treasury they should be applied to
the credit OF the account against the
tax collector upon which such taxes
were originally charged, until that
account was settled; but that right
ceased as soon as the account was
discharged with funds not collected as
taxes. The evidence shows that the
account for 1887 was discharged with
out resort to the taxes applicable to
the account of next year.
1t was error to give judgment
against defendant for even part Of
states demand.
Reversed and rendered.
COURT OF APPEALS.
The following cases were decided
of yesterday:
| AFFIRMED.
Brown, receiver, VS.. Wilson & Rich
ardson, from Eastland county.
G., G. & S. F. R'y Co. VS.. Cole, from
Brown county.
Anderson vs.. Chapman, from Haskell
county.
Worstam Cattle company vs.. Hutch
nson, from Clay county.
G. @. & S. F. R'y Co. VS.. Moore,
from Brown county.
Mcdonald VS.. New Home Sewing
Machine company, from Hill county.
Ross VS.. Falyer Knife company,
from Johnson county.
Rogers ct al. vs.. Cooke, from John
county.
soCitizens National Bank of Waco VS..
TITUS, from McLennan county.
Bremen vs.. The State, from Dallas
county.
Ely ct al. VS.. Adoue & Lobit, from
Limestone county.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Doss VS.. The State, from Ellis
county.
Allen vs.. Curry, from Hill county.
Workman ct al. VS.. Cameron, Castles
& Storey, from McLennan county.
Serray vs.. The State, from Brazos
county.
In ex parte Robinson, under arrest
for contravention against the oil in
spection law, from Harris county, the
applicant was ordered discharged.
Elk PARTE: G. w. ROBINSON.
This was an application for habeas
corpus by Robinson, who was arrested
on complaint charging him with
selling barrel of oil for illuminating
purposes, without having the same
inspected and branded by an officer of
Texas, as required by law of 1889. 1t
appears, however, that said oil had
been inspected in Louisiana under a
law similar to the Texas inspection
law. Applicant contends that the oil
was not subject to inspection in Texas
ON the strength of the proviso of the
third section of the Texas law, which
reads: provided, it shall not be nee
essary to inspect one which has been
inspected under law of another
State" On the other hand, it is
claimed by the State that this clause
is void because unintelligible and
meaningless. Held: The intention
of the legislature must be enforced, if
can be arrived at, and this intention
is absolutely certain, though the
above clause does contain the word
zone" instead of coil" The intention
was TO exempt from inspection oil
officially inspected IN another State.
This is shown by the whole act, and