Volume 24 — Texas Reports

Error from Nacogdoches. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. 0. Hicks. This was a suit by the defendant in error against Stephen N. Bullock, James F. Bullock, Elizabeth Bullock, David E. Bates, and his wife, Elizabeth J. Bates, the plaintiffs in error, on a note and mortgage.

<p>If a sheriff fail to return process issued to him by legal authority, he may be proceeded against and punished for a contempt, under Articles 422 and 1853, O. & W. Dig., 0. S.</p> <p>It is not proper to call a jury to try a question of contempt, except where it is expressly provided for by law.</p> <p>If the contempt be committed in view of the court, it may summarily punish the offender.</p> <p>But if the party be only primS, facie in contempt, as where a sheriff fails to return process, the proper practice is, to enter a judgment nisi, for the amount of the fine, and to issue a 'scire facias, requiring him to show cause why it should not be made final; and he must answer thereto under oath.</p> <p>The court is to decide whether the answer purge the contempt or not; it is not, however, restricted to the answer, but may receive other evidence, and may, in its discretion, remit the fine, in whole or in part, with or without costs; and from this judgment there is no appeal.</p>

Error from Cherokee. Tried below before the Hon. Charles A. Frazer.

Tried below before the Hon. Reuben A. Reeves. This suit was brought by the appellant, against Tobias Eurr, and his wife, Sarah W. Furr, upon a promissory note for $1449, executed to him, by them, in part payment, as it was alleged, for two tracts of land, one of 110T acres, and the other of 153 acres, set out and described in the petition. Prayer for judgment for the amount due on the notes, and for a decree for the sale of the land.

Error from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. W. W. Morris. This was a motion by the defendant in error, against W. C. Wright, sheriff of Rusk county, and the sureties on his official bond, for the recovery of money collected by him under execution, which he had failed to pay over. The only question in the case, arose upon the exceptions taken by the plaintiffs in error to the ruling of the court, as to the validity of the sheriff’s bond.

Error from Red River. Tried below before the Hon. William S. Todd. This was a motion by the defendant in error against Elias Peters, sheriff of Red River county, and M. A. Poer, James P. Alford, C. M. Waddill, and W. E. Estes, sureties on his official bond, to recover $167.67, principal, as also interest and damages, for money collected by the said sheriff, which he had failed to pay over, after demand duly made.

Error from Cherokee. Tried below before the Hon. Reuben A. Reeves. This suit was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error and Thomas Robertson. The plaintiffs alleged, in their petition, that they were the brothers and sisters, and the-descendants of the brothers and sisters of Abram J. Hill.

Tried below before the Hon. Charles A. Frazer. This suit was brought by the appellees on the 1st of April, 1855, against Charles Yinzent, on five notes executed by him in their favor. The defendant, on the same day, acknowledged service of the petition; and on the 2d of May, 1855, answered by a general denial.

Error from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. Charles A. Frazer. This was a proceeding, commenced in the County Court of Cherokee county, by the defendant in error, and J. 0. Maples, to probate the will of Alburtis Arnwine, deceased, of which they were made executors.

Augustine. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. 0. Hicks. The indictment in this case, charged the offence to have been committed on the fifth day of May, 1854. The jury found the defendant guilty, and assessed a fine of $1500, and imprisonment of five days in the county jail.

Tried below before the Hon. Reuben A. Reeves. The appellant, and F. M. Hanks, were jointly indicted for an aggravated assault. Upon the trial of the appellant, he offered Hanks as a witness, who, at the previous term of the court, had pleaded guilty, and had been fined; but it did not appear that he had paid the fine. On objection being made, he was excluded. The defendant was found guilty, and appealed, assigning this ruling of the court for error.

Tried below before the Hon. Charles A. Frazer. This suit was brought by the State of Texas against the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, to forfeit its charter.

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. This was an indictment against John A. Redfield, for false imprisonment.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was an indictment against William C. Powell, for gaming. The defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment, on the ground, among others, that the signature of William Ellison, the foreman of the grand jury, was not the genuine signature of said Ellison, but was signed by some other person; to which the district attorney filed a general exception. The other facts are stated in the opinion.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was a suit brought by George S. Hyde, against Francis M. White, commissioner of the General Land Office, praying for a writ of mandamus, against the defendant, to compel him to issue to the plaintiff an augmentation certificate for 836 acres of land, which he alleged was required to be issued to him, by an act of the legislature of the State of Texas.

Error from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas H. Duval. This was a suit by F. W. Chandler against Augustus Fore, for $500, alleged to be due for services rendered the defendant as an attorney, in defending him before the magistrate, and in the District Court, on a charge of murder.

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas H. Duval. This was a suit brought by Charles K. Bullard, on the 12th day of August, 1854, against Thomas W. Moore, W. S. Oldham, William E. Howth, Peter Klein, John M. Costley, Beese Butler, and the administrators of Thomas A. Moore, deceased, for the recovery of one half league of land, based upon a bond executed on the 27th day of January, 1835, by Thomas W. Moore to William E. Howth, for the conveyance to him of one half of the league of…

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. The appellant was indicted, for permitting a faro bank to be exhibited in his house. The evidence establised the following facts: The defendant kept a grocery in the city of Austin, in a two-story house; he used the lower story for a bar-room, eucre-room, and billiard saloon; the rooms up stairs were used as sleeping apartments, and were accessible from the front and back streets, and from the lower rooms.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was a suit brought by John 0. F. Hill, against Nelson Burch, on the 7th of June, 1856, for $200, with legal interest, from the 7th day of April, 1855. The petition alleged, that on the day and year last stated, James H. Stevens drew a draft upon the defendant, in favor of the plaintiff, for $200, payable at sight.

Error from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell: This was a suit by the defendant in error, against George H. Gray, Frederick W. Chandler, and Morgan 0. Hamilton, the plaintiffs in error, on a promissory note for $518.06.

Error from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This suit was brought by John Hoodie against Seborn G. Sneed, on a promissory note. The petition alleged, “ that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, as is evidenced by a certain instrument of writing, (which is prayed to be taken as part of this petition,) a copy of which is as follows: “ ‘Due John Hoodie $190,875, f°r value received, to bear ten per cent, interest per annum, until paid.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. The appellant was indicted and convicted for permitting a game with cards to be played in his house. The only question in the case was, as to the sufficiency of the indictment in point of certainty.

Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. This suit was instituted by George W. Moreland, against Robert Atchison, on the 21st day of September, 1855, for the rescission of a contract, by which the defendant, on the 30th of October, 1854, sold to the plaintiff, a tract of land in Grayson county, containing 320 acres of land.

Tried below before Thomas H. Harwood, Esq., as special judge selected by the parties, the presiding judge being disqualified from sitting in the case. . This was a suit by the appellants, John E. Olardy and John Gr.

Error from Bastrop. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was a suit by Henry M. Dechaums, and his wife, Susan 1ST. Dechaums, as administrators of Samuel B. Morris, deceased, against Sherman Reynolds and Preston Conlee, on a note for $2600, given by them for a lot in the town of Bastrop, purchased by Reynolds, from the administrators of Morris, at a sale thereof, made by order of the County Court of the said county.

Error from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. This was a suit by Abram Groesbeck against John J. Eakins, on a promissory note.

Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. This was a suit brought by E. J. De Bard against W. It. Herron, on two promissory notes, given for the purchase-money of certain lots in the town of Tellico, sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, which were then conveyed by deed, with a warranty of the title.

<p>The game of pool is prohibited by the statute, whether it be exhibited, as most usual, on a billard table, or on a ten-pin alley, or whether any other evasive device be adopted for its exhibition.</p> <p>An indictment is sufficient, although instead of charging that the defendant kept a pool table, &c., in general terms, it present the facts, which constitute the elements of the game that was kept.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. William S. Todd. This was a suit by Stephen K. Fowler and John S. Chism, against William Allred, for title and possession of 320 acres of land, and against R. W. Allen, as surveyor of Denton land^district, to compel him to record the field-notes of their survey of the land.

Error from Collin. Tried below before the Hon. William S. Todd. This was a suit for divorce, by Margaret Davis against William Davis, commenced by publication; the place of residence of the defendant, was alleged in the petition to be unknown. The petition was filed on the 19th August, 1854; publication was made in a newspaper for four weeks, from the 21st August, 1854.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This suit was brought by George G. Haynes against William B. Coffee and James Daughtrey, on a note for $400, given for a tract of land, lying in Caldwell county, where the suit was instituted. The plaintiff sued for the amount of the note, and to subject the land, on which he claimed the vendor’s lien, to sale, for the payment of the said debt.

Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. This suit was brought by Israel Jennings, against E. G. Browder, administrator de bonis non of the estate of William Jennings, deceased, on the 18th day of July, 1859, to establish, and have classed amongst the just claims against the said estate, a demand, evidenced by an instrument in writing, held by him against the deceased, for $138, which had been duly presented to the defendant for his allowance, on the 16th day of July,…

Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. This was an injunction suit brought by Matthias L. Swing, Greorge W. Barnett, and Alexander Harwood, against John North, John Chase, and Thomas North, on the 30th of July, 1859, to enjoin an execution which had issued on the 21st of April, 1859, upon a judgment in favor of the defendants, against the plaintiffs, for the sum of $865.29, rendered on the 28th day of January, 1857. Ho execution had previously issued on the judgment.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was a suit by Levi Madox, against James Humphries, for the breach of a contract for the lease of land.

Error from Caldwell. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This suit was brought by Jonathan Ellison, against Sarah A. Shaw, as executrix of the last will and testament of R. C. C. P. Shaw, deceased, for the sum of $523.25, alleged to be due on a promissory note, executed to the plaintiff by the deceased.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This suit was commenced by George W. Glasscock against James Doyle, in the court of a justice of the peace, for the recovery of the sum of $30, “due,” as stated in the citation, “by subscription for the Insane Asylum.” Judgment having been given against the appellant, by the justice of the peace, he removed the case, by certiorari, to the District Court, where judgment was also rendered against him, for the amount claimed by…

Error from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was a suit by J. H. Newton, the defendant in error, against Andrew Neill, for the amount collected by him for the defendant in error, on certain promissory notes; and for vindictive damages, for his failure to pay over the same. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant in error, for $112 for his debt, and $100 for damages. The facts are stated in the opinion.

<p>It is well settled, that one tenant in common may maintain an action of trespass to try title, without joining his co-tenant.</p> <p>Tenants in common, must join in actions of trespass relating to the possession : that they must join in the action of trespass guare clausum fregit, is well settled.</p> <p>Although the non-joinder of a co-tenant, can, in general, only be taken advantage of by plea in abatement, or by way of apportionment of the damages, on the trial; yet, if the defect be apparent on the face of the petition, the objection may be taken by exception.</p> <p>If the plaintiff meet such exception, by an amendment, joining his alleged co-tenant, as plaintiff in the action, the joinder will not avail him, if, upon the trial, it appear that the latter had no interest or estate, at the time of instituting the suit.</p> <p>If one who has a good cause of action, join in trespass guare clausum fregit, with one who has no cause of action, the suit cannot be sustained.</p>

Error from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. This was a suit by the defendant in error, John S. McGehee, against Samuel H. Davis, James H. Davis, and William Southerland, on a note, which appeared from the copy of it in the transcript, (before it was altered,) to have been signed, Samuel H. Davis for James H. Davis.

Error from Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. This was a suit by D. C. Henderson against John McConkey, on a promissory note, and to enforce the vendor’s lien on three tracts of land described in the petition, in payment of the purchase-money of which, it was alleged in the petition, the note was given.

Error from Caldwell. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This suit was brought by G. W. Miller, against M. Trimble, and his wife, Mary W. Trimble, on a note of $285, signed by the defendants, and one Alfred Johnson, which was set out in the petition, and expressed on its face the consideration for which it was given.

Error from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. William A. Hamilton, brought suit in the justice’s court, against George L. Walton, for $74.76, for the hire of two negroes, belonging to the plaintiff. On the trial, the plaintiff testified, that the defendant hired the slaves of him, and agreed to pay him for their services, the same amount that F. S. Roy had paid him for their hire.

Error from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. This was a suit by Otto Bomback, and his wife, Sarah Jane Bomback, against William Sykes, Hector McNeill, and E. L. Paschal, to enjoin Paschal, as trustee, from selling a house and lot, (which, it was alleged in the petition, and admitted in the answer, was the homestead of the plaintiffs,) under a deed of trust executed by them, to secure a note given to the defendants, Sykes and McNeill, for f1000.

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas H. Duval. This was a proceeding by scire facias, on a judgment nisi, for $5000, on a forfeited recognisance. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Gaudalupe. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was an injunction suit brought by E. J. Stanley, to enjoin the sale of a certain house and lot, by virtue of an execution levied upon it, to satisfy a judgment against him, in favor of T. C. Greenwood, for $1000.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was a suit by K. H. Barbee against William Holder, commenced the 7th September, 1857, by attachment, on a promissory note, before its maturity.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was a suit brought by Robert H. Hall, against John Simmons, to enjoin him from exercising any further control of the farm and stock of the plaintiff, of which the defendant was possessed under a verbal contract between them. By the terms of the contract, Simmons was to take charge of the said premises, cultivate, and manage them, upon the terms and stipulations therein provided.

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. This was a suit by Charles E. Jefferson against John M. Carolan, for $258.72, due on account.

Error from Parker. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. This was a suit by John J. Good against the plaintiffs in error, J. 0. Headley, B. L. Richey, James Tinsley, and Samuel R. Barber, on a note for $175, executed to him by John M. Eroman.

Tried below before the Hon. E. J. Davis. This was a suit by J. H. Phelps, against Emily W. Brackett, on a promissory note for $1200, executed by O. B. Brackett and the defendant.

Error from Parker. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. This was a suit brought by Parker County against James H. Sewell, John H. Prince, and Gr. K. Elkin, to recover the amount of a note given by them to the plaintiff, as the consideration for the purchase by Sewell, of certain town lots belonging to the said County, and to enforce the vendor’s lien on the lots, which the plaintiff claimed to retain by virtue of the sale.

Error from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. This was a proceeding of forcible entry and detainer, commenced by P. R. Snow against J. M. Clark, in the court of a justice of the peace, where judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in error, who removed the case to the District Court, by a certiorari; and in the District Court, judgment was rendered against him, for the premises claimed, and for the sum of $31.50, for their rent.

Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. This was a suit brought by William Irwin against John C. Cook, for an alleged slander by the defendant, of the plaintiff, in which $10,000 was claimed as damages. The petition alleged, as the cause of action, that the defendant had charged the plaintiff with perjury; no special damages were alleged, and the claim for damages was general.

Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. This was a suit by Joseph Tucker against Joseph T. Willis, and his wife, Margaret Willis, for the possession of a slave, and the value of her hire. The plaintiff alleged, in his original petition, filed May 4th, 1858, that on or about the-day of March, 1853, he married, in the state of Kentucky, Malvina E. Graddie, a daughter of Jesse Graddie, who, on his said marriage, gave to his daughter the negro sued for.

<p>Appeal from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. The facts appear from the opinion.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was a suit brought by John G. Perry against Charles Gr.

Tried below before the Hon. Edward H. Vontress. This was a proceeding by scire facias, on a judgment nisi, on a bond taken by a justice of the peace of Williamson county, on December 81st, 1856, from James 0.

Tried below before the Hon. Edward H. Yon tress. This was an action of trespass to try title, brought by John R. Hubbard and Eliza Hubbard, his wife, Robert Flippin and his wife, Mary Flippin, and Sarah Yandeveer and Emma Yandeveer, by the said John R. Hubbard, their next friend, (the said Eliza, Mary, Sarah, and Emma, being heirs at law of Logan Yandeveer, deceased,) against A. Gr.

Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. This was a suit by Stephen Mann against John A. Sowers and William B. Miller, on the following note, to wit: “ $475. “ Twelve months after date, for value received, we, or either of us, promise to pay Stephen Mann, four hundred and seventy-five dollars, or sooner, if Isaiah B. Hudson should make said Mann, a good and valid title to 320 acres of timbered land, on the west fork of the Trinity river, near Jas.

Tried below before the Hon. Edward H. Vontress. This was a proceeding commenced in the County Court by the appellee, Mary Bybee, a married woman, (without being joined by her husband,) against the appellant, C. C. Cook, to remove him from the guardianship of the person and estate of R. A. Cook, a minor, seven or eight years old, and a son of the plaintiff by a former marriage, and for the appointment of herself as guardian of the said minor.

Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. Robert E. B. Baylor. This was a suit by John C. Mundine against Job Thigpen, on a promissory note for $504.

Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. Robert E. B. Baylor. This case was before this court, at the last term. (22 Texas Rop. 175.) The suit was brought May 30th, 1857, by Joseph M. Thomas, Hewling Cowperthwaite, Charles Desilver, and Jonathan Butler, under the firm name of Thomas, Cowperthwaite & Co., against James Willie, A. H. Willie, D. M. Under-hill, and Harden White, on their promissory note for $432.15.

<p>Appeal from Bell. Tried below before the Hon. N. W. Battle.</p>

Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. Robert E. B. Baylor. This was a suit by L. A. Gordon, the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error. Judgment against him, for $1350. The only error assigned, was, that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence.

Tried below before the Hon. John Gregg. B. C. Drury, the appellee, commenced this suit for the recovery of $4170, alleged to be due him by Henry M. Black, the appellant. At the time of filing the petition, he made oath to the truth of the facts stated in it; that the defendant was about to transfer his property, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, and that an attachment was not sued out for the purpose of injuring the defendant.

Error from McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. N. W. Battle. This was a suit brought by S. Black against James L. Horne as maker, and Charles N. Horne as the endorser of a note for $1467.46. The petition alleged, that Charles N. Horne resided in the state of Georgia, and prayed for process and judgment against both; but there was no affidavit of non-residence filed, nor any action whatever taken to cite Charles N. Horne.

Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. Robert E. B. Baylor. On the 12th day of September, 1857, Elizabeth M. Crosby, administratrix of the estate of Josiah J. Crosby, deceased, brought suit against J. D. Griddings and D. C. Griddings, upon a note for $465.44, given for the purchase-money of two tracts of land, belonging to the said estate, which had been sold at public sale by the administratrix, by order of the County Court.

<p>Where a judgment in favor of a plaintiff, has been reversed in this court, he is not entitled, on a subsequent judgment in the District Court in his favor, to recover from the defendant, the costs that had been previously adjudged against him by this court.</p> <p>But a judgment of the District Court, for the plaintiff, for his debt, and “ all costs in this behalf expended,” does not include the costs previously adjudged against him in this court.</p> <p>If such costs are taxed against the defendant, his remedy is by a motion in the District Court, to re-tax the bill of costs.</p>

Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. Robert E. B. Baylor. This was a suit by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, on a promissory note. The sheriff’s return upon the citation to the defendant, was as follows, to wit: “ Executed March 9th, 1858, by serving the defendant with a true copy of this writ, and a certified copy of plaintiff’s petition.” There was a judgment by default, in favor of the plaintiff, for $671.65.

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. This was an action of trespass to try title, brought by John F. Marshall and his wife, Mary Julia Marshall, to recover, in right of the wife, from William. R. Story, two lots in the city of San Antonio. The lots in question were^ originally the community property of John Farrell and his wife Mary Jane Farrell. On the 6th of May, 1853, John Farrell, executed a deed for the lots to his wife.

Tried below before the Hon. Reuben A. Reeves. This was a suit brought by Samuel W. Wybrants and David Gr. Ransom, against John M. Lutch, Robert Gr. Lutch, William B. Pillow, and James B. Barry, on a promissory note made by them, in favor of the plaintiffs, for $2840.69, payable on the first day of June, 1856; payments amounting to over $500, were admitted. The petition was filed on the 21st of July, 1857.

Tried below before the Hon. Edward H. Yon tress. This was a suit by G. B. Locke against T. B. Huling, on a bill of exchange for $200, drawn by him on Bradly, Williams & Co., New Orleans, dated Memphis, June 7th, 1855, and payable to the order of the plaintiff, four months after date. The petition was filed May 3d, 1858.

Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. Robert E. B. Baylor. This was a suit by Garthwaite, Griffen & Co., commenced on the 1st January, 1857, by writs of garnishment, against Bassett & Bassett, attorneys at law, and also against one W. A. Browning, to enforce the collection of their judgment against Sheegog & Wilson.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was a petition for a mandamus by the appellant against the appellee, C. H. Randolph, Treasurer of the State, and C. B. Johns, the comptroller, to compel the said Randolph, to pay over and deliver to the authorized agent or officer of the appellant, the amount of $150,000, in the United States five per cent, indemnity bonds, belonging to the special school fund, in ' the treasury of the State, upon the warrant of the…

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit brought by David E. Smith against John D. Fly, on the first day of April, 1859, to recover damages for an alleged deficiency of 115 acres, in a tract of land purchased by him from the defendant, on the 29th of December, 1853.

Error from Grayson. Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. This was a suit by George N. Butt, and his wife, Sophia Butt, the plaintiffs in error, againstB.

<p>A dormant judgment against two joint defendants, cannot be revived as to one of them alone, without joining the other in the proceeding for that purpose, or his legal representatives, if he have died since the rendition of the judgment; a judgment rendered on a scire facias, against the survivor in such case, will be reversed.</p>

<p>It is not sufficient in a petition for certiorari, from a justice’s court, in stating the facts in evidence, to aver, that a certain fact, (which was a material one,) was satisfactorily proved, without setting forth the substance of what was proved.</p> <p>The petition for certiorari, of a defendant, who has been sued on an account, complaining that the court had no jurisdiction, because of his residence in another county, is not sufficient, if it do not also show, that the debt was not contracted to be paid in the county, where suit was brought.</p>

<p>Appeal from Collin. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford.</p> <p>This suit was brought by Abraham Barnes against Harrison Jamison and John Bundy, to recover 320 acres of land, and to have decreed to him the title of the certificate, by virtue of which it was located.</p> <p>The plaintiff stated, that he was the owner of a certificate, for one-third of a league of land, granted to Isaac C. Williamson; that he acquired the said certificate from George W. Wright, in lieu of other certificates he had previously bought of Wright, the titles of which were not valid, or were supposed not to be; that the defendant, Jamison, pretending to act as his agent, got the certificate from Wright, erased the plaintiff’s name in the transfer, and inserted his own; and without authority from the plaintiff, sold 320 acres of the said certificate to one William P. Walton, who had sold the land located by virtue of it, to the defendant, Bundy, and had given him a bond for title.</p> <p>The testimony showed, that Jamison was acting as the agent of the plaintiff, in procuring and locating certificates, and was instructed to make the settlement with Wright, on account of the certificates previously sold to the plaintiff, the titles for which were supposed to be defective; and that he applied to Wright for the other certificates, which he had agreed to give in place of those; that Wright delivered to him, as the agent of the plaintiff, the certificate in question, making a transfer of the certificate in blank, upon the back of it. Jamison, afterwards, inserted his name in the blank, sold 320 acres of it to Walton, and executed to him a deed for the same; and Walton subsequently sold to the defendant, Bundy, the 320 acres of land located by virtue of it, and executed to him a bond for title. The defendants read in evidence, a letter from the plaintiff to Jamison, which showed that the latter was his agent, attending to his business in Texas, and which recognised his authority to dispose of his certificates; there was other testimony tending to prove the same fact. The plaintiff resided in Missouri, and was, at the time the letter was written, about removing to California.</p> <p>The plaintiff asked, and the court refused to charge the jury, “ that in order for defendant, Bundy, to protect himself under his purchase from Walton, he must have pleaded in his answer that Walton was an innocent purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice, and must also prove that Walton had, in good faith, paid such valuable consideration.”</p> <p>There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants; a motion for a new trial was overruled, and the plaintiff appealed.</p>

<p>Error from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.</p> <p>This was a suit commenced on the 17th March, 1858, by Mortimer T. Dunham, and his wife, Bathsheba Dunham, formerly Bathsheba Best, and widow of E. W. Best, deceased, as guardians of Emily N. Best, John Best, and Stephen Best, the minor heirs of the said E. W. Best, against Robert Dorn and Stephen Best, for the recovery of, and quieting of the title to 1000 acres of land, conveyed to the said minor heirs by Margaret Best, their grandmother.</p> <p>Margaret Best was the owner of 2000 acres, (an undivided interest in a tract of land on the San Marcos river, known as the Solomon Seals league,) that being her portion in the division of the estate of her deceased husband; the title to the residue of the tract was vested in the heirs of her deceased husband, in Jonathan York, who owned 1500 acres, and in Isaac Welden, who owned 350 acres.</p> <p>On the 10th day of September, 1851, Margaret Best executed a deed to the minors, Emily, John, and Stephen Best, for 1000 acres of the land, “adjoining and below York’s land.” The plaintiffs claimed under this deed, and sought to recover the same from Dorn, who was in possession of, and claimed the same.</p> <p>In August, 1850, the said Margaret made a contract with Robert Dorn, to build houses for her, and for the improvement of a residence, to be selected by Dorn, on the 2000 acres of the Seal’s league of land, which belonged to her; and by the terms of the agreement, for the said services, she was to give him a warrantee title to land on the tract, to include his improvement, at $1.50 per acre, in payment for the buildings and improvements. The work to be valued, by three or more disinterested persons, when finished; and it was further agreed, that Dorn “should have the refusal of the one half of the above-mentioned tract of land, at $1.50 per acre.”</p> <p>At that time, she was living with her daughter-in-law, the widow of E. W. Best, deceased, and it seems, that she designed giving to the wards of the plaintiffs, 1000 acres of her land, and that the improvements which she was contracting for, she contemplated should be occupied and enjoyed by her daughter-in-law, and these minors, who expected to remove unto the same.</p> <p>Dorn went on the land, and resided there in October, 1850, and continued to occupy it as his residence. There had been no partition, nor agreement for partition, of the land, among the owners of the several interests. He made choice of, and settled on the 1000 acres, next to the upper 1000 acres of the league; and it was in evidence, that before the making of the contract, the different undivided interests of the various owners of the league, was the subject of conversation, in which Dorn and Margaret Best, and the witness participated, in speaking of the contract that was in contemplation between them.</p> <p>Subsequently to the making of the agreement with Dorn, in the fall of the year 1850, Margaret Best proposed to Dorn, to abandon the making of the improvements, to which he assented, expressing himself indifferent as to how he should pay for the land. When he settled on it, under his contract with Margaret Best, he made choice of the 1000 acres next to, and below the upper 1000 acres of the league.</p> <p>On the 18th day of July, 1851, Margaret Best executed a deed to Dorn, for 1000 acres, of the 2000 acres owned by her, which was therein described by metes and bounds, “beginning at a stake, set on the bank of said river, (San Marcos,) for the lower corner of a survey of 1500 acres, made for Jonathan York, off of the extreme upper •part of said Seal’s league,” and proceeding to set out the boundaries of the said 1000 acres, conveyed to him as aforesaid, adjoining to, and below the 1500 acre survey of York. This deed, with a power of attorney to deliver it to Dorn, upon the payment of $1500, she delivered to her son Stephen, who, with M. T. Dunham, one of the appellees, who had in the meantime married the widow of Eben Best,1 went to Dorn, and offered him the deed on payment of the money. But when the deed was read to him, he refused to accept it, and to pay the money, because it did not describe the land which he desired, and declared that he would sue Margaret Best for damages.</p> <p>Best and Dunham returned to Lavacca county, taking the deed with them; and Margaret Best, on the 10th day of September, 1851, executed a conveyance of the land, for which Dorn had refused to accept a deed, to the wards of the appellees, John, Emily, and Stephen Best, junior, as hereinbefore set forth, and delivered the deed to Mrs. Dunham, their mother, for them, having previously, on the 2d day of the same month, revoked the letter of attorney which she had given to her son Stephen.</p> <p>• It was proved, that in the month of January, 1852, Stephen Best, handed to his mother, about ten days previous to her death, the deed which Dorn had refused to accept; and she returned it to him, with the request that he would give it to Dorn, and get the money, which the latter was to pay for the land. This deed was filed for record on the 29th day of May, 1852 ; but there was no evidence to prove when, or in what manner, it was delivered to Dorn. The plaintiffs alleged that Stephen Best, in violation of the revocation of the power of attorney given to him by his mother, to deliver the deed to Dorn, had fraudently colluded with the latter, to cheat them, and had, without authority, delivered the deed to Dorn; that Dorn was in possession of the land therein described, claiming the same, and that.he had notice that Margaret Best had revoked the said power of attorney, and had required the said Stephen to deliver to her the deed, which, they alleged, he refused to do, and delivered it as aforesaid, after her death; and they prayed that whatever title the said defendants had in the land, might be divested from them, and for a judgment against Dorn, for $1000, for the use and occupation of the land.</p> <p>The answer of Dorn suggested, that he had settled upon the said land, and made his improvements in good faith, relying upon the good faith of the said Margaret, and the validity of his said contract with her; that up to the time of her death, his right had never been disputed or disturbed, nor since, until the institution of this suit; and therefore he prayed that the value of his improvements might be allowed to him. He also answered at length to the merits.</p> <p>On the trial of the case, the defendant, Dorn, offered to prove that Margaret Best put him in possession; and to prove, also, the value of the improvements he had made; to which the plaintiffs objected, and the objection was sustained. The bill of exception did not show what was the ground of objection.</p> <p>One of the answers of the defendant, Dorn, alleged, that at the time of making his contract with the said Margaret, he was ignorant of the fact, that her interest was undivided, as he after-wards ascertained it to be; but from the representations of the said Margaret, he believed that her 2000 acres, comprehended the upper side of the league, by a line run, or to be run, from the front of said league, on the San Marcos river, to the rear thereof, or back line, so as to give the aforesaid quantity of 2000 acres; that' the bond of the said Margaret was intended to mean (and was so understood, and acted upon by the parties to it,) that the improvements for the residence contracted for, should be made on the said 2000 acres, on the upper part of the said league; which improvements, when made, were to be valued as stipulated in the said contract or bond, and the value thereof to be paid to the defendant, by the said Margaret, in such other portion of the 2000 acre tract, as he might select and improve for himself. And that whether the said contemplated improvements for the said Margaret, should be of value sufficient, or should fall short of $1500, (the value of 1000 acres, at $1.50 per acre,) nevertheless, the defendant should be entitled to the full amount of 1000 acres of the said 2000 acre tract, at that rate, estimating the value of whatever improvements might be made by the defendant, for the said Margaret, and allowing the amount thereof as a payment on the said 1000 acres.</p> <p>The defendant further alleged, that in accordance with such contract and understanding, he went upon the upper 2000 acre tract, and settled thereon, and commenced an improvement for the said Margaret on the upper half thereof; and at the same time commenced an improvement for himself, on the lower 1000 acres of the same, and was progressing with the said improvements when he was advised, as before stated, of her abandonment of the intention to build on the land.</p> <p>It was proved, that Dorn knew of the making of the deed, by Margaret Best to the minors, Emily, John, and Stephen Best, as early as October, 1851.</p> <p>There was a verdict, and judgment for the plaintiffs, for the land sued for, with a writ of possession, and a decree cancelling and annulling the deed from Margaret Best to the defendant, Dorn, dated the 18th day of July, 1851.</p>

<p>Error from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.</p> <p>This was a suit by A. H. Jones, as guardian of Barry G. Anderson, against J. L. Crawford, James A. Crawford and A. W. Crawford, upon a promissory nótelas follows:—</p> <p>“ $199. Gonzales, January 1st, 1857.</p> <p>“ Twelve months after date, we, J. L. Crawford, as principal, and James A. 'Crawford and A. W. Crawford as securities, or either of us, promise to pay to A. H. J ones, guardian of Barry G. Anderson, or order, the sum of one hundred and ninety-nine dollars, for value received, it being for the hire of a negro man,” &c.</p> <p>The plaintiff dismissed as to J. L. and A. W. Crawford, who were not served, and took judgment by default against James A. Crawford, who was served, but did not appear; and from this judgment he prosecuted his writ of error.</p>

Error from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.

Error from Gronzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. The defendant in error brought suit against James Barnes, the plaintiff in error, in the court of a justice of the peace, on three promissory notes, given by the latter to the former, one for $46.66, one for $21.68, and the other for $16.

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. The appellant was indicted on the 9th of October, 1856, for an assault with intent to kill one William Meredith, which was charged to have been committed with a knife.

Tried below before the Hon. N. W. Battle. The indictment in this case was found on- the 17th day of November, 1858, charging the defendant with the murder of Dennis J. Oats, on the 12th day of July, 1858. Before the trial of the case, a suggestion was made, supported by affidavit, that the defendant was then insane; whereupon, on motion of his attorney, a committee of physicians was appointed to ascertain, and report to the court, whether he Was insane or not.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. The appellant, who was plaintiff in the court below, alleged that the defendant, Bass, and himself, were the sureties of A. M. Griswald, on a note to B. B. Walker; that Griswald held a note on Bass, for $365, which he delivered to Bass, and that he so received it, for the mutual benefit of himself and the plaintiff, on account of their liability to the said Walker, one-half of which had been paid by the plaintiff, and the other…

<p>Appeal from Freestone. Tried below before the Hon. John Gregg.</p> <p>The appellant was indicted at the Fall Term, 1857, of the District Court of Freestone county, for the murder of William N. Self.</p> <p>At the Fall Term, 1858, of the said court, a trial was had upon the indictment, and the following verdict was found by the jury, viz: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of murder according to the indictment, assessing the punishment at solitary confinement in the penitentiary, for life.”</p> <p>The defendant moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and he appealed. The questions discussed in the opinion will be fully understood, without a further statement of the case.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. The appellee, Eobert F. Campbell, brought suit against Duncan C. Campbell, on a note for $375, and to foreclose a mortgage given him by the said Duncan C. Campbell, upon the south half and north-west quarter of block of lots No. 3, in the town of Bastrop; and also to enjoin and restrain the appellee, Gill, who was made a defendant, from interrupting or disturbing him in the possession of the mortgaged premises.

Tried below before the Hon. E. E. Buckner. This was an indictment against Reuben Slaughter, charging him with murder, in the usual form. It alleged that the instrument used by the defendant, in the commission of the offence, was a shot-gun; and that he killed the deceased, William McCulloch, voluntarily, with deliberate design, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought.

Tried belowbefore the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was an action of trespass to try title, commenced on the 13th October, 1849, by M. G. Dikes, the appellant, against Allsey S. Miller and Andrew Neill.

Tried below before the Hon. Charles A. Frazer. This suit was instituted by the appellants, as the heirs at law of James D. Millican, deceased, to re-open the succession of Robert Millican, the father of the said James D. Millican, and of Nancy Millican, his mother, and also of William Templeton Millican, Ms brother, who died without issue; to set aside certain conveyances made by the said Nancy Millican, in her lifetime, to the defendants John Millican and Elliot M.…

Tried below before the Hon. 1ST. W. Battle. This was an indictment found on the fifth day of April, 1859, charging William J. Hinton with the murder of Pleasant 0. Whittaker. The facts proved upon the trial, showed that the defendant and the deceased were brothers-in-law; and that the defendant came to Whittaker’s house, on the evening before the difficulty, and staid all night.

Tried below before the Hon. James Webb. This was a suit brought by Ramon Musquis, alleging himself to be a citizen of the county of Bexar, and state of Texas, against Martha M. Blake, and Edwin H. Blake, her husband, Eliza V. Underhill, and Daniel M. Underhill, her husband, and Ellen Goodwin, to remove a cloud from his title to four leagues of land, created by their claim to it; and to quiet him in his possession thereof.

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J, Devine. This was an action of trespass to try title, brought by Mariano Rodrigues, in his own right, and as guardian of Manuel Yturio Castillo and Yincenta Iturio Castillo, minor heirs of Maria Josefa Rodrigues, and Carlos Sandoval and Fernando Sandoval, against A. Thouvenin, William H. Dangerfield, and John Laplace, for five and one-half leagues of land, which formerly belonged to Jose Maria Rodrigues, the son of Mariano Rodrigues, and…

Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. This was a suit brought by Robert F. Mayfield, as administrator of the estate of Sutherland Mayfield, deceased, against Amzi Bradshaw, administrator of the estate of Sarah Mayfield, for the recovery of a slave, named Randle, and also for his hire; alleging, that the estate of the said Robert F. Mayfield owned the slave; that the defendant took possession of him on the 9th day of September, 1854, and had retained it ever since.

Tried below before the Hon. N. W. Battle. Gertiorari from a justice’s court. This was a suit brought by John Smith against Henry J. Warren, an an account against him, for $27.90, as the sum of two accounts of Smith against William Royalls, for $11.61, and John Jackson for $16.29, respectively, which the defendant had assumed to pay. The plaintiff attached to his account, as an exhibit, a copy of a memorandum, containing a statement of the said accounts of Royalls and Jackson.

<p>Appeal from Burnet. Tried below before the Hon. Edward H. Yontress.</p> <p>This suit was commenced by Redding Andrews, on the 3d of April, 1855, against Noah Smithwick, to recover a bounty warrant for 1280 acres of land, or its value.</p> <p>The plaintiff claimed the certificate under an alleged purchase by him, from Jesse Billingsley, in the year 1839, of the discharge of Smithwick from twelve months’ service, which entitled the said Smithwick to a bounty warrant; Billingsley claimed to own the discharge under a title derived through Smithwick’s transfer to one Young.</p> <p>The petition alleged, that owing to a defect in the authentication of the discharge, the adjutant-general refused to issue the bounty warrant; that in consequence thereof, the plaintiff, defendant, and Billingsley, in 1852, brought the matter before the legislature, and it was agreed that an act might be passed authorizing the certificate to issue to, and in the name of the defendant ; and that an act was accordingly passed in that shape. That, thereafter, on the 15th day of March, 1852, the defendant gave the plaintiff a written order to the adjutant-general to issue the warrant to the said plaintiff, as his assignee, but, subsequently to the date of that order, the defendant fraudulently caused the certificate to be issued to himself, and refused to assign or transfer the same to him.</p> <p>The defendant’s answer alleged that the order was obtained by fraudulent representations, and without any consideration; denied specially the fact that he had ever made a valid sale or transfer of the said discharge; averred that Billingsley never bought or acquired title to the same in the manner alleged; pleaded a general denial of all the allegations of the petition; and also the statute of limitations of two years.</p> <p>It was proved on the trial, that the defendant admitted, when the parties were engaged in preparing to have passed the act of the legislature above referred to, that the claim belonged to the plaintiff; that the defendant desired it should issue to Andrews, as assignee, but that it was finally concluded and agreed upon, that'it should issue to him, the said defendant, on his positive promise to transfer the certificate whenever he obtained it. That course was advised by a member of the legislature, on account of previous refusals by the senate to pass similar acts, authorizing certificates to issue in the name of an assignee; it was also deemed best by Billingsley, on account of the loss of a sheriff’s deed, under which he claimed to have derived his title.</p> <p>The plaintiff read in evidence the order from the defendant to the adjutant-general, dated the 15th March, 1852, authorizing him to issue the warrant to the plaintiff as his assignee, reciting therein that “ said Andrews is the rightful owner by purchase.”</p> <p>The bounty warrant was issued by the adjutant-general, on the 26th day of March, 1852, in the name of, and delivered to, the defendant, in pursuance of a special act of the legislature, approved February 10th, 1852, authorizing it to be issued to the said Smithwick, his heirs or assigns.</p> <p>On the trial, the defendant offered in evidence, a certificate from the commissioner of the General Land Office, duly attested by the said officer, as follows:</p> <p>“ General Land Office, Austin, Oct. 2d, 1858.</p> <p>“ I, Francis M. White, commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas, do hereby certify, that there is on file in this office, a duly authenticated transfer from Noah Smithwick to D. C. Freeman, Jr., for bounty warrant, No. 1070, for 1280 acres, issued by James S. Grillett, adjutant-general, to said Noah Smithwick, on the 26th day of March, 1852; said transfer bearing date June 11th, 1852.”</p> <p>To the introduction of this certificate, the plaintiff objected, because the facts recited by the commissioner, were not such as the law required, or authorized him to certify to; which objection was sustained, and the certificate was excluded.</p> <p>The defendant read in evidence, the following portion of the plaintiff’s petition, to wit: “Tour petitioner states, that said certificate was issued in accordance with the said act of the legislature, on the 10th day of March, 1852, by James S. Grillett, adjutant-general, and is No. 1070. Petitioner further states, that since the said certificate issued, the said defendant has refused, and still refuses, to transfer or assign the same to your petitioner, as by said purchase and sale he was bound to do.”</p> <p>The court instructed the jury as follows: “ If the jury believe from the evidence, that the plaintiff purchased the bounty warrant from the, defendant, or from those to whom he sold, he- is entitled to recover. The order executed by the defendant to the plaintiff, of the 15th of March, 1852, is primé facie evidence, as between the plaintiff and defendant, that the former was the owner of the certificate. The admission of the defendant in regard to the property of the certificate, is evidence against him.”</p> <p>“ If the jury find from the evidence, that the warrant was issued to the defendant, under an agreement that he would transfer it to the plaintiff when it was issued, then the defendant held said warrant in trust for plaintiff, and the statute of limitations would not commence to run against him until he had actual or constructive notice of the adverse claim of the defendant. The possession of the trustee is not, per se, inconsistent to that of the cestui que trust, or beneficiary of the trust.”</p> <p>“•Unless the jury believe from the evidence, that the defendant has shown that no consideration passed for the certificate, you will find for the plaintiff; but, in that event, you will find for the defendant.”</p> <p>The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury, “ That if the jury believe from the evidence before them, that, for more than two years before the institution of this suit, the defendant obtained possession of the bounty-land warrant, and held the possession of the same as his own, adversely to the right of the plaintiff, then plaintiff’s right of recovery is barred by the statute of limitations, and the jury will return a verdict for the defendant.”</p> <p>There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $448, the value of the certificate, and judgment accordingly. The case was before this court previously, and is reported in 20 Texas Rep. 111.</p>

Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This suit was brought by Robert Rose, a citizen of Galveston, Texas, for the use of Stephen Whiting, John Haggerty, and George Griswold, against the Governor of the State of Texas, for the adjudication to him, for the use aforesaid, of twenty leagues and twenty labors, as the premium lands to which Joseph Vehlein was entitled as an empresario, by virtue of two contracts made by him, with the authorities of the state of…

Tried below before the Hon. Edward H. Vontress. The bond in this case, was executed by Joseph Russell as principal, and Alexander Russell and Willis Russell as securities, in the sum of $250, conditioned for the appearance of Joseph Russell before the District Court, to answer a charge of assault and battery. The bond did not show, on its face, or by any endorsement thereon, before whom it was taken. The answer of the defendants alleged a compliance with its conditions.

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas H. Duval. This was a suit to try the right of property to a slave levied on as the property of Wesley Smith, by virtue of an execution from the District Court of Travis county, in favor of the plaintiff, John B. Banks, and claimed by the defendant, John A. Green, under a deed conveying the said slave, together with certain other property, to him in trust for the creditors of Smith.

Error from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas H. Duval. This suit was instituted by John A. Green against John B. Banks and Henry Ross. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion.

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. This suit was brought by the appellant, Gertrudes Flores y Seguin, the wife of John N. Seguin, in her own name, by authority of the court, against Samuel A. Maverick, George T. Howard and Duncan 0.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit by Byrd R. Rogers against Robert Broadnax, on two promissory notes, under seal, in the ordinary form; one of them for $4000, and the other for $5000. The defendant answered by a general denial, and set up special matters as a defence; the plaintiff demurred to the special answers, which need not be here set forth, and his demurrer was overruled.

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. This was an action by scire facias, instituted by the State, to recover of John Wilcox, and from the estate of John S. M‘Donald, deceased, the sum of $500, the amount of a recognisance entered into by H. A. Mann, as principal, and Wilcox and M‘Donald, as sureties, on an indictment against Mann, for grand larceny.

Tried below before the Hon. Edward H. Vontress. The appellant, James A. Smith, was indicted for selling intoxicating liquor to a slave, without the consent of his master, overseer, or employer.

Error from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. Held: about every other night, in the house adjoining the grocery kept by the defendants; at these fandangoes, the women were all prostitutes; indecent and obscene language was heard by the witnesses on these occasions; no decent woman attended such place.

Tried below before the Hon. N. W. Battle. This was a suit by John B. Westbrook, against William L. Mitchell, Jr., for the recovery of a negro, alleged to have been formerly a free negro, but who had, for a consideration stated in the petition, sold himself to the plaintiff, and who had been enticed out of his possession, by the defendant. Exceptions to the petition were sustained by the court, and the cause dismissed.

Tried below before the Hon. N. W. Battle. This was an indictment against the appellants, Thomas M., John B., and Stephen Westbrook, for imprisoning and kidnapping Lewis John Bedrolls, a free negro, for the purpose of detaining him as a slave.

Tried below before the Hon. John Gregg. This was a suit brought on the 6th day of March, 1855, by Joseph F. Nally and Rush Nally, against William B. Loftin, for the cancellation of a deed made by them to the defendant, for the south-east quarter of a league of land granted to Mary Prior. On the 5th day of February, 1850, Loftin, who owned the south-east quarter, agreed to exchange it with one Thomas T. Bailey, for the north-west quarter of the same league.

Tried below before the Hon. Robert I. Townes. This suit was commenced on the 22d October, 1850, by Stephen Townsend, the appellee’s intestate, against Isaac L. Hill, the appellant, to recover certain negroes which he claimed to be entitled to, as assignee of the heirs of Benjamin Thomas, deceased.

Tried below before the Hon. Edward H. Von tress. This was a suit of trespass to try title, and for a partition, by Martha J. Gragg and her husband, and Eliza Holder, the widow of William Holder, against W. D. Thompson, Freeman, James K., Benjamin F., and Moses Smalley, Aaron Rubel, .Thomas Bacon, and others.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit by William Brunwankel against 0. R. Hopson, for the amount alleged to be due him from the defendant, on an instrument of writing, made a part of his petition, of which the following is a copy, to wit: “ There'is a balance due the bearer, four hundred and seventy-five dollars. “ 0.

Error from Lavaca. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit for the trial of the right of property in 12,000 pounds of seed cotton, which had been levied upon, in December, 1856, by the sheriff of Lavaca county, to satisfy two executions in favor of R. M. Forbes, against M. T. Dunham and B. B. Blanchard.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was an action to try the right of property in a certain slave, levied on to satisfy an execution in favor of John Walmsley against John S. Hubbard and others, on the 12th of September, 1859. John S. Hubbard, the defendant in the execution, made claim to the slave, in behalf of and as agent for his mother, Sarah Hubbard, and made the oath, and gave the bond, provided for by the statute regulating such proceedings.

Error from Calhoun. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit brought in the District Court of Calhoun county, on the 17th of March, 1858, by William P. Bridgeman and E. M. Day, against Thomas Wilson, on a note for $>372.18. The defendant was served with process, in that county, on the 25th of March, 1858.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was an action of trespass to try title, and for damages to two certain tracts of land, brought by Nathaniel Chambliss against C. W. Garrett. The real matter of dispute was a question of boundary between the tracts of the respective parties, who derived their titles from a common source. The plaintiff claimed $1000 as damages, from the defendant, for cutting a ditch, about 1200 varas in length, upon the land of the former.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was as action of trespass to try title, brought by J. J. Ballard against D. B. Ponton, for a tract of. land, claimed by both parties under A. J. Ponton.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was an action to try the right of property in certain goods, wares, and merchandise, levied upon by virtue of an execution from the District Court of Victoria county, for the sum of §223.61, in favor of Gr. J. Wood, against John W. Maulding.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit to try the right of property in a wagon, two yoke of oxen, and a horse, levied on under an execution in favor of the appellee, E. M. Greenway, against N. K. McDuffie, and claimed by his wife, E. A. McDuffie, the appellant, as her separate property.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This suit was commenced in the County Court, on the 14th of June 1859, by the application of Margaret Ingram, the wife of James Ingram, for letters of administration on the estate of Julia A. Nickelson deceased, the wife of John L. Nickelson.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit brought by Horace S. Fulkerson to the use of A. H. Lowery, on the 6th day of February, 1856, against Samuel A. White, as surviving partner of the late firm of White & Southern, to recover the sum of $292.75, with interest from the 20th of June, 1854; being the proceeds of a consignment of goods by the plaintiff to the said firm of White & Southern, as commission merchants, to be sold by them on commission.

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This suit was commenced by Henry Tudor, the appellee, against S. A. White, the appellant, in the Court of a Justice of the Peace, on a note for $75.33, purporting to have been executed to Tudor by S. A. White & Co., on which there was a credit of $27.38. The defendant pleaded non est faetum. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant removed the case to the District Court by writ of certiorari.

Error from Jackson. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.

<p>Appeal from De Witt. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.</p> <p>This was a suit by B. J. Pridgen, guardian of Wiley W. Pridgen, against F. M. Buchannon, Lemuel Stubbs and Benjamin Cage, on a promissory note for §345, given by the defendants, for the hire of several slaves belonging to the said minor; and for the value of Biddy, one of the said slaves, whose death was charged by the plaintiff to have been occasioned by the wrongful act of the defendants, (who were farmers in De Witt county,) in removing her from De Witt county “ in the fall of the year, to-county, on Caney creek, and there causing her to be employed in picking cotton, and in performing other labors in the swamps and sloughs between the Colorado and Brazos bottoms, a region of country notorious for being unhealthy, and particularly so to persons unacclimated to that section of country,” &c.; “ and that the defendants, while employing and using the said slave, Biddy, failed to use ordinary care, diligence and attention in administering to the common wants and necessities of said slave,” &c.</p> <p>The defendant Buchannon, pleaded a general denial, and payment of the note sued on. The other defendants also pleaded a general denial, and that they signed the note sued on as the sureties of their co-defendant, Buchannon, who had "paid the same, whereby they were released from all further liability.</p> <p>There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed.</p>

Ekrob from Goliad. Tried below before the Hon. M. P. Norton.

Error from Goliad. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit by J. 0. Wheeler against J. M. Goffe, executor of John T. Campbell, deceased, and J. L. Gossete and H. W. Campbell, his sureties, to recover the sum of $100, with interest thereon from the 1st of June, 1853.

Tried below before the Hon. E. J. Davis. The petition of Antonio Tijirina, for a writ of certiorari, alleged that his deceased mother, Feliciana Tijirina, left, in the county of Cameron, and state of Texas, a large quantity of land, supposed to be between nine and eleven square leagues, having, before her death, deeded to Basse and Hord, the interest referred to in the opinion, as belonging to them, which was a part of the tract known as the Agostedora del Esperitu Santo, in…