Sartor v. Bolinger

Citations

• 59 Tex. 411
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 186

Syllabus

<p>1. Judicial knowledge. — A court of Texas will not take judicial knowledge of the meaning of words unknown to the English language, and when a deed authenticated in a foreign language is offered in evidence without a translation, it is properly excluded.</p> <p>2. Authentication.— One styling himself “ Kanzlie, director of the city of Stuttgart, Germany,” was not an officer who in 187-3 could take an acknowledgment to a deed for land in Texas; and a consular certificate that the particular individual who filled that office was commissioned to take acknowledgments imparted to his act no additional force.</p> <p>8. Evidence — Handwriting.—The presiding judge before whom a cause was tried, a jury being waived, rejected as not worthy of belief the evidence of a witness whose testimony, being taken by deposition, was conflicting and contradictory. The object of the testimony was to establish a deed by proof of handwriting. Held,</p> <p>(1) The witness having stated, on cross-examination, in effect, that he did not know the grantor, evidence of his handwriting contained in letters attached to his answers was properly excluded, when, 1st, there was no evidence that the grantor knew and acquiesced in acts founded on their supposed genuineness. 2d. When neither the witness nor any other person was able to establish the identity of the party.</p> <p>(2) The court having, in the place of a jury, passed on the credibility of a witness, and refused to believe him, the supreme court would not reverse for that cause.</p> <p>4. Comparison op handwritings.— No instrument can be proved by comparison of handwritings., unless it be shown that the signatures offered for comparison were made by the individual whose name is written to the instrument sought to be established.</p> <p>5. Pratice.— In trespass to try title the genuineness of an instrument offered in evidence may be attacked without filing an affidavit of forgery, when the party offering it has failed to comply with art. 22