The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-06-19
|IEsr COURT DECISIONS.
.....s Of Opinions Handed Down
:. the Latest Sitting.
LorREp BY THE SUPREME COURT
,, Alleged In II Petition Is
n.rcndnnt, Pinintin
Must Prove IT,

lin. Texas, June II 80 -. tho
w. .ss Of the opinions delivered Os 'n'
~ court today os -
ue .or pT AL VS.. THOMAS +:
An county Judge: su s,. W o,, aeN hona |
.na The suretles on ms o'ns'st . ono
n anu =" treasurer the sum OF $l3,ooo,
,S 10 have been cohser'on, i,o
sa,s county. Fourth NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
rmanded' ,,s. ,,r
4, trial Judge Instructed a veru''. ~.
sas and the Judgment rendered by u
~,,,nce with the verdict so returned
mrmed by the court of civil appeals
,reh. TO maintain the judgment
a,ea grounds: % That the bona
secures the county against de-
4, the treasurer which occurred
ne execution: l2) that Coe, having
,o,orts TO the commissioners court
..oueut to the execution OF the bond
,oon in which he showed balance
hands which would cover the amount
IA of the sureties. those reports are
,,s,iye upon ,he sureties to show that
lad the money in his hands after the
:, xas given. l3l that Coe made false
.,.s IN the commissioners court. in
..s he showed a balance OH hand suiil-
!, IN cover the sum sued for, when, IN
II was not on hand. aud thus mislcd
commissioners court. and the bondsmen
IN, trst bond having become insolvent.
gr,ies on the new bond would be
n liable on account OF the false reports
Is made.
Anne Z. Prather. one of the defend
n ia the court below and one OF The
k,n.nts in the court of civil appeals.
motion In this court to dismiss Il c
Q, error because Coe, the principal,
he and others who were suretlrs upon
list bond OF Coe were not made par
10 this writ. Al of the parties named
NJ. Anne Z. Prather filed acceptance of
IrSs in this court
NJ statute does not require petitions for
rs Of error TO name all of the parties
as proceeding. cart. 9i2. X. S J. The
isH 10 name the parties in the petition
sw consequence. If they had been cited
rsrg to law. and the filing of tho
saa In compliance with the statute has
sect 10 remove the cause to this court
h. The writ Is granted. The parties moi
MI having accepted service, and Anne
hsher having appeared. the whole OBJ
h 4 the law Is accomplished. which is
EEcs the parties by proper notice before
nzrt. The motion is overrul ID.
IN. Prathcr also filed n motion to
tae the submission OF this cause for
aon that 2. J Butler. one of the
ki1s in error died prior to the filing
y edition for the writ of error in the
Esdyil appeals but after he appeal
er court had been perfected.
WI the terms Of our statute on this
s.a the death Of Butler can not ar
U proceedings in the court of civil
fasm in this court. IT having oc-
lter the appeal was perfected
A. r. 81
Y bond sued ON was executed az
ltlonal bond to one which had been
fFnly executed by Cee. and its lam
Z conforms TO the requirements of the
ne. TART 922 r. 81
se pond contains no words which would
an ihserpretatlon that woIli give
re'rospective effect; and did no; bud
sureiies for the funds of the County
20 mad been lost prior to its execution.
~ was sufficient evidence to sustain
" that the money was lost prior 10
aecutlon OF the bond: and the trial
erred IN instructing verdict against
nreties.
iae Official reports of Coe. as county
slu. would be prima facie evidence
~ Tue sureties on his official bond in
S thev renort on matters which the
'nulred him to embrace in surn rr-
statements in such reports, IT mat
w required by law to be embraced
~ can have no binding force as 10
.'e'ies The reports made by Coe,
are relied upon by dafcnd1uts in
we're made after the a ldi'i Onal boz d
sven. and contained he statement
Vaiahce IA sum stated) remained on
ine end OF each quarter, which, II
'Vu'n be sufficient TO ;n'ln1e the
10" Claimed from the surelies upon
Jaw did not SECURE Coe to make
statements In his reports and they
~ even prima facie evidence aLainsi
ehes' Under the statute, county
not reduired to give dctaliel
.al Of the sums received and paid
nm Since his last report. Cart. 92S
lie Is not required TO state what
=. money remain on hand at that
tas latter duty is imposed by Law
' commissioners court. Art. So
ssed and remanded.
-ai0h by Brown. j.
EpSSA' BAuMAN VS.. ]. r. CHAM
lam certified questions in Land suit
laho county. Third District.
"'sal question in the case was
vi or not there had been convey
NE land in suit from one Saudde
n u Baldwin. One of defendants
'etea that this conveyance hai beer
(uI,,sss There were other pleas of Iii
HI. ~ WIN this allegation. The eeed
,hn,, he county where the convey
d,' nave appeared of record MAJ
|stI,n and mutilated by FIRE, an'
kApeaao. These mutilated recorns wer
bs N evidence by plaintiff TO sho'
!, M, CONVEYANCE mentioned ap,va ha
. ~ me statement certified By tn
{ Aer A.. eiFll apueais does not sho'
m 'nuaht pleaded general denia
/ sstlops
dsfsns ! and .; lis the clause quote
. X, a., answer such an adnissio
De y, mat Scudder eXecuta ID "A con
to, ., 70 Sarah Baldwin TO The land /
spo, as TO establish the fact with
y ~, MI 20 dispense with proof OF III
read h'lii. the clause not having
kAonld "a evidence by planting