WRITINGS OF 5AM HOUSTON, 1859
285
no power of attorney from La Vega to perfect the title. They incontestably prove that it was a -corrupt and speculative sale of a defective title. Let me place this question before honorable Senators. Suppose tliat the action of the trustees, Menard and Williams, or her other agents making this sale and conveyance, had been called 'into question by Mrs. St. John (for whose benefit the sale was made), suppose she had come into court, and had said that the sale was not fair, and moved to set it aside; is there any ·court of equity in the land that would have refused the applica- tion? No. The inequality between the value of the land and the amount of the purchase money is too egregious to be overlooked. It is the very sign and badge of fraud to the transaction. It proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the knowledge of the parties of the defects of the title, and the existence of a corrupt conspiracy to supply this all-important link, and without which it was wholly worthless, as subsequent events have shown, by a forged document, and by using Judge Watrous's court to sustain such forged muniment of title. And, in this connection, it will be borne in mind that Judge Watrous not alone received one fourth part of the purchased land, at the trifling consideration named, but also, on a credit of five years, and to this day, after a lapse of eight years, has not paid, or been required to pay, one cent. Moreover, there is another most important circumstance. I have stated that the grant in the Hancock and McKinney case, and the La Vega grant, were identical. The position of Samuel M. Williams was the same in both grave cases. He had sold the Santiago del Valle grant (which was involved in the Hancock and McKinney case) , as the agent of Santiago del Valle, in the same manner as he had sold the La Vega grant as the agent of La Vega. Judge Watrous was also interested in the Santiago del Valle grant to the extent of some four or five thousand acres of land. He, the judge, was represented by Robert Hughes, who argued the case before the supreme court of Texas. Now, it appears that, in the Hancock and McKinney case, as in the Lapsley cases, there was no power of attorney from Santiago del Valle to Williams. In the case of Hancock vs. McKinney, "it was admitted that Williams had authority to act for Del Valle.'' This is reported from the case--7 Texas Reports. An opportunity to explain this singular admission was afforded Hughes, the counsel of Judge
Powered by FlippingBook