Shinn v. Hicks

Citations

• 68 Tex. 277
• 4 S.W. 486
• 1887 Tex. LEXIS 681

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—Ancient Instruments.—A bounty warrant forty-six years old, which had been recognized as genuine, and acted on for more than forty-five years, found in the custody of the general land office, where it properly belonged, when free from suspicion on account of anything apparent on its face, was held to prove itself as an ancient instrument, when an affidavit that it was a forgery had been filed, there being no evidence offered to sustain the affidavit.</p> <p>2. Evidence.—It is competent for the Commissioner of the General Land Office to testify what meaning is conveyed by the record entries on a tabular statement, on record in his office, as understood by those officially employed under him.</p> <p>3. Same.—On an issue involving the fraudulent alteration of a bounty warrant a witness who, as an officer, had taken evidence of the transfers made by parties claiming under it, and who had witnessed, the execution of some of them, was permitted to state: “I know that the land warrant and the transfers attached thereto are all genuine, honest instruments, and entitled to full faith and credit.” Held, no error; the objecting party had a right, if he desired, to examine the witness and ascertain upon what facts he based his statement that the certificate itself was genuine.</p> <p>4. Bounty Warrant—Presumption.—A bounty warrant issued by the Secretary of War of the Republic, in 1838, on its face declared that the beneficiary, by his attorney, named therein, was entitled to the land, “ a id to sell, alienate, convey and donate the same, and to exercise all rights of ownership over it.” In a suit, begun in 1880, involving title claimed to have been derived through the attorney named, held:</p> <p>(1) That it would be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, after so great a lapse of time, when all the parties having knowledge of the facts were dead, that the Secretary of War acted within the scope of his authority.</p> <p>(2) The burden of proving th