Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-22

under the acts of 1879 and 1881 doubted,
or even had anyone any thoughts OF
doubling their validity.
The parties who purchased aid lands
had certificates issued to them from the
general LAND office Of the state vesting
title in them, the purchasers paying to
the state and county taxes on lands so
purchased. No man in this state, much
less out of it, ever questioned the VAL
idlty of such titles acquired from the
sta te to the school lands purchased by
them until the passage of that act.
In the meantime, and before any suit
by the state was thought of, James NJ.
O'Donnell. for himself and others for
whom he bought, conveyed by deed duly
executed on March &c, 1884, all school
lands which they owned in the state of
Texas, which amounted to about 40, 900
acres situate in Brazoria county, Tex,
together with some 90 900 acres pur-
chased from individual parties princi-
pallY situate In Galveston and Brazoria
counties, so that it must be borne in
mind tina of the 1903 900 acres owned by
the Brazoria land and cattle company,
only forty odd thousand acres are school
lands, which the deed to which the Re-
public will fiud recorded in BraZoria
county, Tex, record of deeds, so that
after that date Mr.. O'Donnell bad no H.
terest whatever in any state school n
in the state of Texas.
On the lst day of April, 1884, the case
of the State of Texas VS.. Talmage 4
O'Donnell, No. 1929, wa filed in the
district court OF Travis county involving
the title TO SO ,480 acres OF land; but
which DR.. Ehrman II the ''Republic'
have made celebrated by making it q
1920, 900 acres steal of the public school
lands of Texas by Col. Talmage, MIR.
O'Donnell and myself
First, the defendant, 2. A. Talmage,
by his attorneys, Messrs. Baker. Bolts
s. Baker of Houston, and Maxey & Fisher
of Austin, filed a general demurrer and
several special exceptions to the petit
tion as not containing a good cause of
action, and second, that he was an in
nocent purchaser OF said lands
without any notice whatever OF any
~illegality or fraud in the purchase
of same, which certainly was heavens
solemn truth, and l assert this IN de-
Tense of the honor of Col. Talmage,
whose lips are silenced By the seal of
death. And say further, in defense of
Mr.. James M. O'Donnell. also deceased,
that he never thought he was avoiding
VI ( ~ laws VI thc q VI RAo
in his purchases for himself and others
O'Dornell by his attorney answered.,
disclaiming any and all interest in said
lands; thai he a sold the same to the
said A. A. Talmage on March &c, 1884,
for n valuable consideration, and that
said deed conveying the same was re-
corded in Brazoria county record of
deeds, giving the book and pages where
SO recorded.
The case came on for trial before Hon.
A. S. Walker, Sr., judge of the district
court of said district, the latter part of
June 1885, who after hearing argument
of counsel, both for the state and de-
PENDANTS, sustained several of the ex-
ceptions Interposed by the defendant,
Talmage, and dismissed the case, where
upon the state by her encouragement,
Hon. John D.. Templeton, appealed the
case to the supreme court of Texas, and
1t was agreed by the counsel, both for
the plaintiffs and defendants, that the
case should be returnable to the Tyler
term of the supreme court, meeting
there the first Monday in October
following, so as to expedite a decision,
SO the transcript Of the case vas sent
there. The supreme conrt not having
time to decide the case at Tyler trans
ferred 1t TO Galveston, where their de-
cision reversing and ~remanding the case
was rendered April ), 1886. The ground
upon which the court placed their ruling
will be found stated in the opinion in the
case of the State of Texas vs.. d. III.
Snyder ct al. [66 Tex. Rep. p. 6S7].
The case having been returned it was
afterwards tried before the same judge
without a jury on It's merits on December
on 1ASE un1 tho f,,S ~ nnt ,nf tho o0rrb
was in favor of the defendants. The
case on its last trial was represented on
the part of the state by the Hon. John
d. Templeton, then Encouragement OF
the state of Texas, n james H. Rob-
ertson, ESQ.,, of Austin, district attorney
of the Twenty-siXth district, and the
evidence in favor of the defendants in
the case being so Overwhelmingly con-
elusive in their behalf, the judgment of
the court was not appealed from so that
it was q matter of imposslbilitv for At
torney- General Hogg, tie present gov
ernor-elect of the state of Texas to have
taken any part whatever in the prosecu-
ton of this suit, as it was decided on
December 20, 1886, from which nc ap-
peal was taken By the state, and Mr..
Hogg not having qualified Us attorney
general.until the second Monday III Jan
uary, 1887, so that the matter could not
have come to his notice.
Regarding the answe of Messrs. Tai
mage and O'Donnell separately, l wish
to say that four sets of i~nterrogatories
were ~propounded to Mr.. O'Donnell at as
many different times by Attorney-Geu-
eral Templeton, three of which Mr..
O'Donnell answered before his death,
Mr.. Talmage having answered fully,
while nearly all other parties to whom
Undergraduates were ~propounded, in
whose names and for whose use the lands
were purchased by Mr.. O'Donnen as
their attorney in fact, answered, and as
previously stated the judgment of the
court was not appealed from.
Notwithstanding what Mr.. Lloyd has
said as to the proprlsty OF attorneys pre-
pairing answers TO in~terrogatories for
witnesses to sign u swear to, which no
doubt ls admissible in the presence of
such witnesses, or when they do not
know how to 'oouch their replies in
proper legal language" yet, 1 have
never done such a thing In my long pro-
f%essionai career. l could not have pre-
pared answers for a witness whom 1
never saw, or knew, and l am sure that
l did not do so in this instance. 1t is
possible that may have, at the instance