The Waco evening news. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 1891-1894, 1892-05-05
The List of Suits Brought by At
torney General Hogg.
OUT OF ELEVEN HE GAINS TWO
And out of the S1.2OO.OOO Worth of
Land GOV. HoEg Claims TO Have
Won for the state There Is Only
1.2SO Acres Accounted For.


admirer of Mr. Hogg asserting upon
the streets today the great things that
he had done, and among others that
he had recovered millions of acres of
land for the state. | would like to
fnd few thousand acres out of these
vast millions. / think l would be
tempted to go out and camp on them
awhile out of pure curiosity.
After leaving my friend, [ reread
Hogg's great Rusk speech and es-
pecially the autobiographical part Of it.
[ notice in one place he says that
since his induction into the Office of
attorney general he has lost but two
suits and that he never applied for a
continuance in any of them. | con.
Guided that l would 60 through the
supreme court reports of our state and
see how, from every case in which he
figured as attorney general, they
would mirror him in his litigation.
The first case | find is that of the
state VS.. Rhomberg, SO Texas, 2l9,
which, by the bye, was reversed upon
the ground that the motion for con
tinuance made by the attorney general
had been enormously overruled. This
case merely construes the act of 1888,
known as the "land fraud act" and
the entire opinion, SO far as the merits
of the case are concerned, is predi.
Gated solely upon the case of the state
VS. Snyder, sc Texas, 6S7. This
Snyder case was brought by Attorney
General Templetou and was lost by
him in the court below, but was ap-
pealed and reversed and remanded
and in the opinion, this Gland fraud
act' is thoroughly discussed and con.
strued by Mr.. Justice Stayton, and
the road to success IN another suit
predicated upon this act is SO uner-
ringly blazed out that any average
lawyer could not possibly get lost
therein.
The next case find is that of Farmer
VS.. state, GO Texas, 56l, wherein it il
decided that life insurance companies
cannot be incorporated as benevolent
associations-a decidedly evident
proposition. In this case we fud as
ISOLATED with Mr.. Hogg, r. l.. Car
lock, Esq , and ID. P. Ayres, Esq.
The next ease l find is that of state
VS.. Degrees, u Tex, 242, which was
a proceeding of quo warranto insti
tuted by Mr.. Hogg against Degrees
to GUST him from the office Of alder
man IN the city of Austin. Mr. Hogs
lost this case in the court below anc
appealed to the supreme court, where
the case was reversed and dismissec
upon the ground that the petition die
not show that the Office in question
was of any value, and that the peti
ton in such cases must show tina
the perquisites of the office is within
the jurisdiction of the district court
and such has been the settled law o.
this state ever since the decision il
state VS.. Owens, 63 Tex, 26l.
The next case | find is that of thu
state VS.. Taylor & Kelly, which was I
case where Taylor & Kelly, as lessee'
of the wsterworks of the city Of
Georgetown, brought suit to enjoiI
the assessment of taxes on said water
works as against them, which injunc-
ton was perpetuated in the cour
below, from which decision Mr.
Hogg appealed and the case was
affirmed,
The next case find is the Gulf
Colorado and Santa Fe railway com
pany VS.. the state az Tex, 4O4,
which is commonly known as thu
traffic case, the history of which il
familiar In this case Mr.. Hogs
succeeded and broke up the tratf'
association and on the next dal
freight local ates advanced,
The next case | find is that of the
state VS.. Opperman "a Tex, 1867
which was a suit by Mr., Hogg to can,
eel the sale of $40 acres of land IL
Hsrdeman county. He lost the cast
in the court below and appealed 1t t
the supreme court, where it was re-
versed.
The next ease find is that OF Gun
ningham vs.. the state "a Tex, OIL.
= which was suit brought by Mi
-, Hogg to cancel the sale of one sectio
u of school land in Donley county, whic
is suit he gained.