273
WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1859
This fact is of the highest importance. The op1mon of Mr. Justice Daniel, to which I have referred, and which manifests careful and special study of the questions connected with the power of attorney, contains so clear a judgment on the subject, that I may conclude what I have to say on it by quoting a portion of the leared judge's remarks. He says: "In the next place, with respect to the deduction of title from La Vega, to whom, it is said, a grant was made by the Government, by the decrees first ·examined. The first step in the deraignment of this title is the paper, styled the power of attorney, from La Vega to Williams, dated May 5, 1832. The authenticity of this paper rests upon no foundation of legitimate evidence. It cannot be considered as possessing the dignity and verity of a record, nor of a copy from a record. It is not shewn that the laws of Texas required it to be recorded; and without such a requisition it could not be made, in legal acceptation, a record, by the mere will or act of a private person. This paper does not appear to have been placed on record; and if, in truth, it had been recorded in a proper legal sense, still there is no copy said to have been taken from a record, or certified by any legal custodian of the record or of the original document."... "It has been seen that this document is neither a record, nor a copy from a record. The language of the instrument, and that of the certificate of Gonzales, alike contradict any such conclusion. The certificate declares it to be a copy of a priate paper, and nothing more." "The irregularities connected with this alleged power of attorney seem to me too glaring, and too obviously liable to gross abuse, and tend too strongly to injury to the rights of property, to be tolerated in courts gov- erned by correct and safe rules of evidence." Judgment was rendered in New Orleans in favor of the plaintiff in the suit of Lapsley vs. Spencer, as I have stated, on the 30th of May, 1856. After the decision of this suit, it ap- pears that in another of the Lapsley cases remaining on the docket, viz.; Lapsley vs. Mitchell and Warren, a commission was taken out by the defendant to take the testimony of Tomas 1 de la Vega, of the La Vega grant, and of Jose Cosme de Caste- nado, the custodian of the archives at Saltillo, with reference to the power of attorney heretofore so frequently referred to, which purported to have been made from La Vega to ·wmiams.
Powered by FlippingBook