
    [No. 1292.]
    F. M. Hanks v. The State.
    1. Constitutionality op a Statute.—Article 454 of the Penal Code provides that “persons out of the State may commit and be liable to indictment and conviction for committing any of the offenses enumerated in this chapter, which do not in their commission necessarily require a personal presence in this State, the object of this chapter being to reach and punish all persons offending against its provisions whether within or without this State,” Held, that the Legislature did not transcend its legitimate powers in enacting this article, and that it is constitutional. See the opinion in extenso for a discussion of the subject,
    
      2. Extra-Territorial Forgery of Titles to Lands in this State-Jurisdiction op the State Courts.—The forgery in another State of titles to lands in this State, or of any instrument affecting the titles to lands in this State, is an offense against the laws of this State, and subject .to the jurisdiction conferred by Article 454 of the Penal Code.
    Appeal from the District Court of Travis. Tried below before the Hon. A. S. Walker.
    The opinion of the court states the nature of the case. The penalty imposed by the verdict was a term of two years in the penitentiary.
    W. D. Wylie was the first witness' introduced by the State. He testified that at the time of this trial he had been a resident of Dallas, Texas, for about one year. Previous to his removal to Dallas, the witness had resided for fifteen or sixteen years in Caddo parish, Louisiana. The witness, though not positive, was of the impression that he met the defendant in Dallas on one occasion. If, as the witness believed, he did meet him for the first time in Dallas, he had forgotten the date of that event. The witness’s first actual acquaintance with the defendant was in Shreveport, Caddo parish, Louisiana. The witness had also forgotten the date of the first meeting in Shreveport. The defendant was then in company with one P. F. Dillman, and spoke to the witness about lands which he claim 1 to have for sale.
    The witness wrote a transfer, conveying a lan ertificate to Doctor Taylor, who was purchasing it. Here the following papers were handed to the witness: Certificate for one league of land, purporting to have been issued by the Republic of Texas to A. S. Droddy; transfer of the same, written on the back, from A. S. Droddy to Benjamin Porter; transfer of the same from Benjamin Porter to P. F. Dillman, with certificate of authentication attached; and a transfer from P. F. Dillman to Joseph Taylor. These papers are marked “A,” “B,” “C” and “D” respectively. The transfer from Dillman to Taylor, dated April 5, 1879, in the handwriting of the witness, he recognized as one which he wrote himself. He also wrote the certificate of acknowledgment. With the exception of the signatures, the witness, who was an attorney at law, wrote these two papers entire. The defendant came with Dillman to the office of the witness in Shreveport, and offered the certificate for sale. The witness spoke to Taylor about purchasing it, and, as Taylor’s attorney, conducted the negotiations with Dillman, and went with Dill-man to see Taylor about the matter. The certificate, with the transfer on the back of it, and the transfer from Porter to Dill-man, were all attached at the time, according to the best recollection of the witness. These papers, which were there in Dill-man’s possession, were handed to the witness by Dillman, attached just as they were on the trial, except that the transfer from Dillman to Taylor had been added since. The witness asked the defendant about the papers, and the defendant told the witness that he regarded them good. The witness had known nothing of Dillman, who was introduced to him by the defendant, j The defendant had relatives in Shreveport who stood high,1 and through his connections the witness supposed the defendant was a trustworthy man. The witness was not buying certificates on his own account. When the defendant introduced Dillman to the witness, he told the witness that Dill-man was in his debt and wanted to sell the certificates to raise money with which to pay; that he would get a part of the purchase money if the sale was made. The sale was made. The witness got the money on Taylor’s check, and paid the money over to Dillman himself. The witness, though not positive, was of the impression that the defendant afterwards told him that he got a part of the money.
    According to the recollection of the witness, he paid Dillman two hundred dollars in the matter. Before closing the trade, the witness telegraphed to Jones & Murphy at Dallas, asking if there was such a certificate, and if it was genuine. They answered by telegram: “It is.” The papers were brought to the witness as genuine.
    The witness knew little or nothing of the subsequent history of the papers. They were delivered to Taylor when the money was paid. The witness went to Washington City after the transaction, and Taylor died a short time later. There was a note drawn for two hundred and fifteen dollars, payable by Dillman to Taylor, of which amount (paid for the note by Taylor’s check) Dillman got two hundred dollars, and the witness got fifteen dollars as his fee for drawing up the papers. The witness wrote ihe note but did not know what became of it. It was his recollection that there was another paper connected with this transaction, hyt he could not remember what it was. The note referred to was tSse paper marked exhibit “D,” and it was given for the money paid on Taylor’s check. The conditions of
    
      this transaction were that if the note was paid at maturity, then Taylor was to secure to Dillman title to one-half of a league and labor of land in Texas, under some other valid certificate. If the note was not paid at maturity, then the two hundred and fifteen dollars was to be the price of the Droddy certificate. All of these papers were passed by Dillman to Taylor in Caddo parish, Louisiana, and were so passed to obtain the two hundred and fifteen dollars. But for the part taken in this transaction by the defendant, no sale of the certificate from Dillman to Taylor would have been effected.
    Cross-examined, the witness testified that, at the time of this transaction, he was engaged in the law and land business, and Doctor Taylor was engaged in buying and speculating in lands. The witness, according to his recollection, first met the defendant and Dillman on the day before the certificate transaction, at Caldwell’s livery stable, in Shreveport. He and the defendant recognized each other, and spoke, and then the defendant introduced the witness and Dillman. The next day defendant Hanks and Dillman came to the office of the witness, and Hanks told him that Dillman had a Texas land certificate for sale. Hanks did not claim that he owned any interest in the certificate, but said that Dillman was owing him, and that if Dillman could sell the' certificate he could collect from the proceeds a part of the amount due him. The witness telegraphed to Jones & Murphy at Dallas, and received an answer from them on the same day. Colonel C. C. Henderson was present at that interview. The witness thought something was said at the time about Dillman owning a farm in Caddo parish, and something about his desire to raise money by executing a mortgage on the farm. The witness had never seen Dillman before he met him at the stable with Hanks, nor since the certificate transaction.
    Dillman and the witness went together from the latter’s office to Doctor Taylor’s. Hanks did not go with them, and was not present when the sale was concluded. Taylor, Dillman and the witness were the parties present at that time. Hanks’s entire connection with the sale was his introduction of Dillman to the witness; his statement to the witness that Dillman was a good man; his statement to the witness that Dillman had the land certificate for sale, and that he, Hanks, thought the certificate was genuine. The certificate was exhibited and referred to Hanks in the witness’s office. The papers were made out and signed at Taylor’s residence. Hanks was not present, and had nothing to do with this part of the transaction. Dillman left the witness at his office after their return from Taylor’s, and the •witness thought no more, nor heard more, of the matter until he received a paper from this court. That paper was not a subpoena. The witness was arrested and discharged upon his statement of the facts as he stated them on this trial. He was not before the grand jury, and had no understanding with anyone when he was released. The witness declined to state the charge upon which he was arrested, but presumed that the records of the court would show.
    F. M. Hammond testified, for the State, that he was appointed notary public in Dallas in 1876, and held that office for two years. He knew P. F. Dillman, who was introduced to him by defendant, F. M. Hanks. He saw Dillman often in Dallas during the years 1877 and 1878, and did notarial work for him and Hanks during those years. The witness had known the defendant Hanks since 1872. Hanks resided in Dallas, and was a land agent and lawyer, and trader generally. Here the witness was shown papers marked respectively “E” and “F,” consisting of a deed from Thomas Bullock to Dillman, and a deed from Dill-man to Thomas Barron, with certificates of authentication attached. The witness saw these papers on June 27, 1877, the date of the notarial certificates, by which he identified them. Hanks was a witness to the deed from Bullock to Dillman, and, as such witness, proved its execution before the witness on June 21, 1877. There was no witness to the deed from Dillman to Barron. That deed was proved before the witness by Dillman himself, on June 21, 1877. The witness could not say that he saw him write his signature, but he acknowledged it. The witness could not say that Dillman and Hanks were together in his office on that day.
    Cross-examined, the witness said that he knew Thomas Bullock, who resided in Dallas county, and he knew that Hanks proved the deed from Bullock to Dillman. The witness had seen Dillman write, and thought he could tell his signature. The name signed to the deed from Dillman to Barron the witness believed to be Dillman’s own proper signature.
    Major W. M. Walton testified, for the State, that he had known Hanks since 1872, and knew his handwriting. The following papers and endorsements were in Hanks’s handwriting: 1. “W. A. Lawing to F. M. Hanks—Deed,” which is an endorsement on the deed from W. A. Lawing and H. C. Clark, marked “K.” 2. Signature of F. M. Hanks to the deed from F. M. Hanks to J. S. Lane, marked “L.” 3. Body of the deed from J. S. Lane to Bird S. Hanks, marked “M.” 4. Body of the deed from Bird S. Hanks to Thos. Bullock, marked “H.” 5. Body of the deed from Thos. Bullock to P. F. Dillman, marked “E.” 6. Body of the deed from P. F. Dillman to Thos. Barron, marked “F;” also the body of the deed marked “0;” also statement marked “P,” also signatures to- deeds marked “Q,” “R,” and “S.”
    J. Gr. W. Pierson testified, for the State, that he saw and had business with Hanks in Dallas, Texas, in June, 1877. The chain of title to 1345 acres of land in Erath county, Texas, patented to the heirs of J. A. Foster, was exhibited to the witness and recognized by him. This chain of title, including conveyances from the patent down to the deed from Dillman to Barron, is marked “G,” “H,” “I,” “J,” “K,” “L; ‘M‘MV ‘E” and “F.” These papers and a slip or statement marked “P,” the witness received from Hanks in Dallas on the twenty-first day of June, 1877. The lands described in these papers purport to be in Erath county, and were the subject of a transaction between Hanks and the witness as the agent of Thomas Barron. Hanks had sold Barron a land certificate upon which a patent was refused, and the witness was employed by Barron to proceed against Hanks for remuneration. Hanks satisfied Barron by procuring the transfer, marked “F,” from Dillman to Barron, conveying one hundred and twenty-five acres out of the Foster tract. The witness saw Hanks on June 19 or 20, 1877, and entered into the arrangement with him for the settlement of the matter with Barron, and the meeting and transfer on June 20, 1877, as above described, was the result of that agreement. The witness did not see Dillman, nor did he recollect what was said about him, further than that Hanks stated that Dillman was in his debt, and that he could get him to make the transfer to settle Barron's demand for the failure of the certificate Hanks had sold him.
    Hanks spoke of the erasures in the deed from Kelley to Hawing, marked “I,” and said that they were made before he received the deed; that some name had been erased in the body of the deed, and the name “William A. Hawing” written over it as the vendee, and that the word “Missouri” had been substituted for some word erased. A slip with the name “William A. Hawing” written on it had been pasted over an erasure. The witness took that slip off. In explanation of these changes Hanks said that the party to whom the deed was originally made failed, and that the original vendee’s name had been erased and another substituted. Barron lived in Hamilton county, Texas. The witness did not see Dillman during these negotiations. The statement marked “P,” showing the manner of the transfer from Dillman to Barron, was required by the witness of Hanks, and was written by Hanks in the presence of the witness, and delivered by him to the witness in Dallas, on the twenty-first day of June, 1877. All of these papers the witness delivered to Captain Rhoads Fisher.
    Cross-examined, the witness stated that several of the papers in the chain of title handed him by Hanks had been recorded long prior to the transfer of Dillman to Barron, in 1872 and 1873. Hanks told the witness that the deed from Kelley to Rawing, “I,” had been originally made from Kelley to one Clark, who had failed; that Rawing was. Clark’s father-in-law, and when Clark failed he substituted Lawing’s name in an effort to save the land. Hanks also explained that when he bought the land a power of attorney to sell was executed by Rawing to Clark, and that Clark made the deed to him in his own name and as attorney in fact for Rawing. The witness did not recollect that Hanks said when this was done, nor did Hanks tell him that he bought the land from Clark. This deed was the only suspicious document among the papers delivered by Hanks to the witness, and the witness considered his explanation satisfactory.
    Rhoads Fisher, for the State, qualified himself as an expert in handwriting, and pronounced the deed marked “H,” from George W. Foster and Mary J. Burton to Thomas Kelley a forgery. The deed from Kelly to Rawing, marked “I,” he also denounced as a forgery. The witness examined the erasures in the latter deed, and testified that the original name which had been erased and supplied with the name of “William A.'Rawing” might have been Clark. Some of the letters forming the name “H. C. Clark” could be distinguished. In the opinion of the witness the word “Florida” formerly occupied the space in the deed now occupied by the word “Missouri.”
    This witness. pronounced the certificate “Ho. 222,” marked “A,” a forgery. The deed on the back of that certificate, from A. S. Droddy to Benjamin Porter, marked “B,” was also a forgery. The deed from Benjamin Porter to P. F. Dillman, and the certificate of authentication marked “C,” were also forgeries.
    The original and genuine certificate issued to A. S. Droddy, according to this witness, was then on file in the General Rand Office, and had been there since 1846. It was located and patented in Jasper Land District prior to 1846. It was here exhibited to and identified by the witness, and was marked “T.”
    The witness, taking the name of P. F. Dillman, signed to the deed from Dillman to Barron, and identified by the witness Hammond, as a standard, pronounced the deed from Benjamin Porter to P. F. Dillman, marked “C,” and the words “Benjamin Porter” and “transfer,” in the certificate of authentication thereto, to be in the handwriting of P. F. Dillman. He also pronounced the deeds marked “Q,” “R” and “S” to be in Dillman’s handwriting. He stated that the certificate of authentication to the deed from Porter to Dillman has been detached from another deed, and the name of the original grantee erased, and “Benjamin Porter” inserted, and also some word erased and the word “transfer” inserted. The balance of the certificate is in the handwriting of L. W. Collins, who was a notary public in Travis county in 1871. L. W. Collins was now dead, but it was proved that this certificate of acknowledgment No. 5019 was attached to a deed executed by W. C. Buxley to George W. Miller, and acknowledged before said Collins., The purported league and labor certificate in the name of A. S. Droddy, the witness stated was a well executed forgery. On the paper marked “ W” was written the following memorandum in pencil: “The within certificate is fraudulent. A. S. Droddy certificate is on file in the General Land Office.” This memorandum the witness stated was written by Stephen Crosby, who was chief clerk of the General Land Office in 1846 and 1849, and subsequently Commissioner of the General Land Office.
    Hon. W. C. Walsh, Commissioner of the General Land Office, qualified as an expert, and corroborated the testimony of Fisher in every particular.
    Judge Joseph Lee testified, for the State, that he had been Judge of the Court of Claims, and in that capacity had passed on many certificates. The certificate marked “A” he believed to be a forgery, but it was written on the same kind of paper used, and in the manner in which certificates were written in that day, and Avould readily deceive a majority of persons. This witness pronounced the signatures attached to the genuine certificate issued to A. S. Droddy, on March 2, 1838, to be the genuine signatures of the gentlemen who at that time constituted the Board of Land Commissioners of Jasper county.
    
      Alfred. Grooms, for the State, corroborated the testimony of Judge Lee in every particular.
    Mrs. L. W. Collins testified, for the State, that she was the widow of L. W. Collins, deceased, who was a notary public in Travis county in 1871. The certificates of authentication to the deed from Porter to Dillman, which was here exhibited to her, she stated, with the exception of the words “Benjamin Porter” and “transfer,” were in the handwriting of the late L. W. Collins, with whose handwriting she was thoroughly familiar.
    The State then read in evidence the purported certificate, marked “A,” as follows:
    “REPUBLIC OF TEXAS, ) “A.”
    “County of Jasper. ) Ho. 222.
    “This is to certify that A. S. Droddy has appeared before the Board of Land Commissioners for the County of Jasper & proved according to Law that he arrived in this Republic in the year A. D. 1831, & that he is a married man & entitled to one League & one labor of land, upon the condition of paying at the rate of three Dollars & fifty cents for each labor of irrigable land, & two dollars and fifty cents for each labor of temporal or arable land, & one Dollar and twenty cents for each labor of pasture land which may be contained in the survey secured to him by this certificate.
    “Given under our hands, this the 7th Day of September, A. D. 1839.
    “Atest, John Bevil, Presid’t.
    “A. G. Parker, Clk Co. Ct ) W. H Stark ) Associate.
    & Ex-off. Clk B&LCom’rs J. Co. ) Wm. Meyers, ) Combs.”
    “I hereby certify that the above certificate is on Record in my office and Recommended by the Traveling Board of Land Commissioners. Given under my hand and seal this 10th day of July, 1841.
    “A. G. Parker, Clk. Co. Co.
    & Ex-off. Clk Bd. L. Combs, J. Co. [u. s.]”
    The State next introduced in evidence the paper marked “B.” It purported to be a transfer of the above certificate from A. S. Droddy to Benjamin Porter. It was drawn in the usual form, purported to have been executed and signed by A. S. Droddy, in the town of Jasper, Jasper county, on the thirty-first day of October, A. D. 1839, and the names of James Wilson and William Drake appear as attesting witnesses. Attached to this transfer and of same date is a certificate of authentication purporting to have been executed by Martin Parmer, chief justice and ex-officio notary public of Jasper county.
    The State next introduced in evidence the paper marked “C.”
    It purports to be a transfer of the same Droddy certificate number 222, from Benjamin Porter to P. F. Dillman. It is drawn in the usual form, and purports to have been executed and signed by Benjamin Porter, in Travis county, Texas, on the thirtieth day of May, 1871. The certificate of authentication reads as follows:
    “THE STATE OF TEXAS, )
    “County of Travis. )
    “Before me, L. W. Collins, a notary public, Travis county, personally appeared Benjamin Porter, to me. well known, who acknowledged that he signed, sealed and delivered the above attached transfer, dated thirtieth day of May, A. D. 1871, for all the uses, purposes and considerations therein stated.
    “In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand, and affix the the seal of my office this thirtieth day of May, A. D. 1871.
    (5019.)
    [l. s.] “L. W. Collins,
    “Notary Public, Travis County.”
    The State next introduced in evidence the paper marked “D.” It is the contract between Dillman and Joseph Taylor, signed by each of them in Caddo parish, Louisiana, on the fifth day of May, 1879, in the presence of W. D. Wylie and W. H. Wise. It is drawn in the form of an absolute conveyance of the purported Droddy certificate number 222, reciting as consideration the agreement of Taylor to locate for Dillman one-half of a league and one-half of a labor of land in Texas, through some other land certificate, provided the said Dillman paid at the expiration of six months a note for two hundred and fifteen dollars, executed on the same day by him to Taylor. The certificate of authentication bears date April 5, 1879, and is signed and sealed by Lewis E. Carter, notary public, Caddo parish, Louisiana. This certificate recites the acknowledgment as made by P. F. Dillman.
    
      The State next introduced, in evidence the chain of title to the Foster lands, consisting of:
    1. The document marked 11G.” This document is patent number 300, of volume 12 of the Record of patents. It was signed in the city of Austin, October 22, 1860, by Sam Houston, Governor, and Francis M. White, Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas, and it patents to the heirs of J. A. Foster, deceased, thirteen hundred and forty-five acres of land located in Palo Pinto county, Texas, by virtue of bounty warrant number 869, issued by H. L. Upshur, acting Adjutant General, on the eighteenth day of June, 1851. The certificate of G. W. Gentry, clerk of the District Court of Erath county, shows that this patent was filed for record in his office on the ninth day of October, 1872, and was recorded the same day.
    2. The paper marked “H,” purporting to be the deed of George W. Foster and Mary J. Burton, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, surviving heirs of Joseph A. Foster, deceased, conveying to Thomas Kelley, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sundry tracts of land and warrants patented and issued to Joseph A. Foster, including the thirteen hundred and forty-five acres named in the patent number 300, above referred to, but not then patented. This deed purports to have been executed by the said George W. Foster and Mary J. Burton, on the thirtieth day of December, 1852, in the presence of Andrew Foster and James M. Lane. It purports to have been acknowledged on the same day by the said George W. Foster and Mary J. Burton before John Binns, commissioner of deeds for the State of Texas, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The heirship of the said G. W. Foster and M. J. Burton, to J. A. Foster, as purported by his certificate, was on the same day, before the said John Binns, commissioner as aforesaid, testified to by Andrew Foster and James M. Lane. To this entire instrument the certificates of the district clerks are attached, showing that it was recorded in Dallas county on the second day of October, 1872, and in Erath county on the ninth day of October, 1872.
    ' 3. The paper marked “I,” purporting to be deed of Thomas Kelley, of California, formerly of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, conveying to William A. Lawing, of Missouri, among others, the thirteen hundred and forty-five acre survey mentioned in said patent number 300. This instrument purports to have been executed by Thomas Kelley, on the sixth day of February, 1872, and to have been acknowledged by him on the same day in the city of New York, before John Brady, notary public. Certificates of the district clerks show its record in Dallas county, Texas, on the second day of October, 1872, and in Erath county on the ninth day of October, 1872.
    4. The paper marked “ J,” a certified copy of a document of record in Harris county, purporting to be the power of attorney executed on the sixth day of May, 1872, by William A. Lawing, of Christian county, Missouri, empowering Henry C. Clark, of Christian county, Missouri, for him and in his name to sell and dispose of, and make deeds to, all lands lying in the State of Texas owned by the said William A. Lawing. This power of attorney purports to have been acknowledged by the said William A. Lawing before J. R. Vaughan, notary public for Christian county, Missouri, on the sixth day of May, 1872. According to the certificates of the district clerks, this document was recorded in Erath county on the tenth day of March, 1873, and in Dallas county on the twenty-fourth day of February, 1873.
    5. The paper marked “K,” purporting to be the deed of H. C. Clark for himself and as agent and attorney in fact of William A. Lawing, conveying to F. M. Hanks, two tracts of land, one of them being the thirteen hundred and forty-five acres patented to the heirs of J. A. Foster, deceased, by the said patent number 300. This document purports to have been executed by the said Clark in Dallas county, Texas, on the fifteenth day of October, 1872, and is attested by C. Gr. Payne. It was acknowledged, according to the certificate of the district clerk of Dallas county, by the said Clark, on the same day; and was recorded in Erath county on the fourth day of the succeeding December.
    6. The paper marked “L,” purporting to be the deed of F. M. Hanks, executed by him and acknowledged by him before A. H. Steagall, notary public for Dallas county, Texas, on the twenty-eighth day of October, 1875, conveying to J. S. Lane three hundred and seventy-two acres of land, being a remaining unsold balance out of the tract of land patented to the heirs of J. A. Foster by virtue of the said patent number 300. The certificate of the district clerk recites that this document was recorded in Erath county on the eighth day of November, 1875.
    7. The paper marked “M,” purporting to be the deed of J. S. Lane, conveying to Bird S. Hanks one hundred and twenty-five acres of land, being the unsold balance of the original thirteen hundred and forty-five acre tract patented to the heirs of J. A. Foster, deceased, by virtue of the aforesaid patent number 300. This deed purports to have been executed by said Lane in Dallas county, Texas, on the third day of April, 1876, and by him acknowledged on the same day before A. H. Steagall, notary public for said county. It was recorded, according to the clerk’s certificate, in Erath county, on the thirtieth day of April, 1877.
    8. The paper marked “N,” purporting to be the deed of Bird S. Hanks, conveying the last mentioned one hundred and twenty-five acres of land to Thomas Bullock. This deed purports to have been executed in Dallas county, Texas, on the second day of April, 1876, in the presence of Paris Dillman and F. M. Hanks as witnesses, and acknowledged by said Bird S. Hanks before W. W. Peak, justice of the peace and ex-offici'o notary public, on the twenty-sixth day of the same month. It was recorded in Erath county on the thirtieth day of April, 1877.
    9. The paper marked “E,” purporting to be the deed of Thomas Bullock, executed in Dallas county on the eighteenth day of June, 1877, conveying to P. F. Dillman the one hundred and twenty-five acres of land last above mentioned. This deed purports to have been executed by the said Bullock, in the presence of F. M. Hanks and B. B. Howell, and was proved before F. M. Hammond, notary public, by F. M. Hanks, on the twenty-first day of June, 1877.
    10. The paper marked “F,” purporting to be the deed of P. F. Dillman, executed in Dallas county, on the twenty-first day of June, 1877, conveying to Thomas Barron, of Hamilton county, Texas, the one hundred and twenty-five acres of land above mentioned. This deed was acknowledged by the said P. F. Dillman, in person, before F. M. Hammond, notary public, as aforesaid, on the day of its execution.
    The State next presented in evidence the paper marked “P,” which reads as follows:
    “Dallas, Texas, June 21, 1877.
    “ I have this day caused a deed to be made from P. F. Dillman to Thomas Barron, for one hundred and twenty-five acres of land in Erath county—the balance of the headright of J. A. Foster; and hereby state that the title is clear, and that it is a fair average tract of that size in that county, and that I think it worth from two to two hundred and fifty, in ordinary land transactions. F. M. Hanks.”
    The State next introduced J. E. Lucy, who testified that he arrested Hanks in a hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, in April, 1881. He found Hanks’s valise at his boarding house, and in it found the following papers, which were identified, and read in evidence:
    1. A letter, “W,” as follows:
    “Caldwell, Sept. 1, 1849.
    
      “Mr. Wm. A. King:
    
    “Will please take the within field-notes to the General Land Office, and present them to Mr. Smith (the Commissioner), and kno w of him what can be done in the way of getting a patent for the land. Also inquire of him relative to the genuineness of the certificate, and if a patent cannot be issued on the within field-notes (which I have no idea there can); know whether a certificate for the balance of two-thirds of a league can be given from the General Land Office, as the holder of this certificate of A. S. Droddy has only the two-thirds of a league; the balance being one-third, one labor belongs to others, and the parties wants a certificate of one-third a labor separate, so as to locate when it may best suit him. Please make the necessary inquiry, and oblige a widow and your humble servant,
    James Howlet, Dist. Sur.”
    Endorsed as follows: “‘W’—B. Porter’s field notes on Drod-
    dy’s certificate and other papers.”
    “The land on which Mrs. Porter lives was deeded to C. M. Mathis in the year 1834, and cannot be deed to any other persons. W. A. King.”
    Pencil memorandum as follows:
    “The within certificate is fraudulent. A. S. Droddy certificate is on file in the Gen’l Land Office.”
    2. Paper marked “X,” being a set of field notes of a survey of two-thirds of a league, made for Benjamin Porter, assignee of the A. S. Droddy certificate, number 222. The survey was made in Milam Land District, on the twenty-sixth of December, 1848, by James Howlet, district surveyor.
    3. The paper marked “ O,” purporting to be a deed executed by J. F. Str'oop, of Johnson county, Texas, conveying to F. M. Hanks one store house and lot in Cleburne, dated on the twenty-fourth day of October, 1870, and attested by G. H. Maxey and H. Donahoo. The clerk’s certificate recites the acknowledgment of J. F. Stroop in person, on the seventh day of April, 1871, and the record of the same in Johnson county on the following day.
    
      4. The three papers marked “Q,” “R,” “S;” the one marked “Q” purporting to be a deed from F. M. Hanks, dated on twentieth of April, 1878, conveying to P. F. Dillman a parcel of one acre of land, a part of lot 4, of the Grigsby league, situated one mile from the Dallas county court house. This deed appears to have been acknowledged by F. M. Hanks before F. M. Hammond, notary public, on the same day. The paper marked “R” purported to be a deed executed in Dallas on April 20, 1878, by F. M. Hanks, conveying to P. F. Dillman a tract of twelve hundred and eighty acres of land in Erath -county, Texas, patented to Drury Oldham by patent number 50, of volume 4, of the Records of Patents. This deed was also acknowledged by F. M. Hanks, before F. M. Hammond, on the same day. The paper marked “S” also purported to be a deed from F. M. Hanks to P. F. Dillman, executed and acknowledged on the same day and in like manner, and before the same notary, as deeds “Q” and “ R.” This deed “S” purports to convey city property in Dallas, Texas.
    The State next read in evidence the genuine land certificate issued to A. S. Droddy, marked “T,” as follows:
    “Ho. 222.
    “This is to certify that Adna S. Droddy has appeared before us, the Board of Land Commissioners for the county of Jasper, and proved according to law that he arrived in this country in the month of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, and that he is a married man and entitled to one league and one labor of land, upon the condition of paying at the rate of five dollars for every labor of temporal or arable land, two dollars and forty cents for every labor of pasture land which may be contained in the survey secured to said Droddy by this certificate.
    “Given under our hands this second day of March, 1838.
    “Geo. W. Smythe,
    “President.
    “Thos. B. Huling,
    “John Be vil,
    “Associate Commissioners.
    “Attest: R. S. Pennall, Clerk.”
    The State then read from the record book of L. W. Collins, deceased, notary public for Travis county, an entry identified by Mrs. L. W. Collins, as foIIoavs:
    “5019. Deed from W. C. Buxley to George W. Miller. Land in Jack District. May 30.”
    Doctors A. F. Wright, J. H. Harvey and J. D. Stetson, of Sherman, testified, for the defense, that they had known the defendant for many years, and that he was under their treatment for insanity for about six weeks in 1874. In their opinion he was then incompetent either to take care of himself or to transact business. He left Sherman in 1874 in that condition, and had not been seen by the witnesses since. The witnesses thought that his mental condition was superinduced by intemperance! that his faculties were not completely but partially destroyed; nor could they say that the condition was permanent.
    W. E. Doty, the defendant’s uncle, testified that he had knoAvn Hanks from his childhood. Hanks and Dillman were at his house in Shreveport, Louisiana, about April 5, 1879. The defendant was not then, in the opinion of the Avitness, in a sane state of mind.
    'Doctor Charles Baskerville, of Memphis, Tennessee, testified that he knew Hanks in 1879, and from that time until his arrest. He was then habitually non compos mentis—not sane at any time.
    T. T. Coffer, C. H. Robertson, Mrs. L. D. Cook and Doctor J. H. P. Westbrook, of Hernando, Mississippi, testified that Hanks was in Mississippi in 1874, in an insane condition. He left there, and returned again in the fall of 1879, and remained several months. On both occasions, and during the whole time, he was entirely insane, and not responsible for any of his acts.
    W. H. Witt, of Dallas, testified, for the defense, that he had known Hanks for twenty-five years. He knew H. C. Clark, and knew that Clark had a father-in-law in Missouri named Rawing. He kneAv that Hanks made a trade with Clark for some land. He knew P. F. Dillman. Dillman left Dallas about two years before this trial. He, Dillman, always bore a good reputation for honesty in Dallas. The witness thought Hanks insane in 1874, and thought he had been insane since.
    Doctor R. E. Grant, for the defense, testified that he met the defendant on the streets of Austin a few weeks before this trial, and had a talk with him. He did not then regard him sane.
    
      The defense introduced the record of the indictment of State’s witness W. D. Wylie, charging the said Wylie with this same offense.
    In rebuttal, the State introduced J. G. W. Pierson, who testified that Hanks appeared perfectly sane throughout their transaction on the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first days of June, 1877. He manifested good business capacity in the Barron negotiations with the witness.
    Major W. M. Walton testified that he had had large correspondence with the defendant, from 1871 to 1881, involving business transactions. The witness had no doubt of defendant’s entire sanity at any and all times during this period.
    J. W. Robertson, and F. M. Hanks in proprio persona, for the appellant.
    
      J. H. McLeary, Attorney General, for the State.
   White, P. J.

There is -but a single question which we think is involved in and requires discussion on this appeal.

Appellant and one P. P. Dillman were jointly indicted’in the District Court of Travis county for the forgery of a transfer of a land certificate for a league and labor of land in the State of Texas. It is alleged in the indictment that the acts constituting the forgery were all committed in Caddo parish, in the State of Louisiana. Ho act or thing connected with the execution of the forgery is charged to have been done in Texas; but the crime and injury, so far as this State is concerned, are averred to consist in the fact that the said forgery in Louisiana “did then and there relate to and affect an interest in land in the State of Texas, * * * and would, if the same were true and genuine, have transferred and affected certain property, to-wit, a certain land certificate, number 222, for one league and labor of land in the State of Texas,” etc.

This indictment was brought under Article 451 of the Penal Code.

By Article 454 of the Code it is declared that “persons out of j the State may commit and be liable to indictment and convic- i tian for committing any of the offenses enumerated in this j chapter which do not in their commission necessarily require a I personal presence in this State, the object of this chapter being j jto reach and punish all persons offending against its provisions, ¡whether within or without this State,” etc.

It was made a ground both in the motion to quash the indictment and in arrest of judgment, and is again urgently insisted upon in the able brief of counsel for appellant, that the facts alleged, if true, would constitute an offense against the sovereign State of Louisiana alone, and one of which the courts of this State would have no jurisdiction. /

If the position thus assumed in behalf' of appellant be correct, then the Legislature had no authority to- pass the act quoted, and the same is an absolute nullity. Can this proposition be maintained? It certainly cannot be found in any constitutional inhibition, State or Federal, depriving the Legislature of the authority, and unless there is some authority of law superior to the right of a State Legislature, which could and should control the action of the latter within the scope of its constitutional powers, we cannot well conceive how its enactments, if reasonable and consistent with that power, could be held inoperative and nugatory. X

Two authorities, which are to the effect that “the Legislature of one State cannot define and punish crimes' committed in another State,” are mainly relied upon. The leading one is the case of The State v. Knight, taken from 2 Haywood, and reported in Taylor’s North Carolina Reports; page 44. The other is People v. Merrill, 2 Park’s Criminal Reports, 590. The defendant in the first case was indicted under a statute the words of which were: “And whereas there is reason to apprehend that wicked and ill disposed persons resident in the neighboring States make a practice of counterfeiting the current bills of credit of this S^ate, and by themselves or emissaries utter or vend the same, with an intention to defraud the citizens of this State: Be it enacted, etc., that all such persons shall be subject to the same mode of trial, and on conviction liable to the same pains and penalties as if the offense had been committed within the limits of this State and prosecuted in the superior court of any district of this State.” It was held that the jurisdiction to try in North Carolina was doubtful, and the prisoner was discharged.

Mr. Wharton, in his work on the Conflict of Laws, says: “The sturdiest advocates of the hypothesis that the locus delicti alone confers jurisdiction have admitted that there are cases in which a person whose residence is outside the territory may make himself, by conspiring extra-territorially to defeat its laws, infra-territorially responsible. If, for instance, a forger should establish on the the Mexican side of the boundary between the United States and Mexico a manufactory for the forgery of United States securities, for us to hold that when the mischief is done he can take up his residence in the United States without even liability to arrest, would not merely expose our government to spoliation, but bring its authority into contempt. To say that in such a case the Mexican government can be relied upon to punish is no answer; because, first, in countries of such imperfect civilization, penal justice is uncertain; secondly, in cases where, in such country, the local community gains greatly by the fraud and suffers by it no loss, the chances of conviction and punishment would be peculiarly slight; and, thirdly, because all that the offender would have to do to escape' justice in such a case would be to walk over the boundary line into the United States, where on this hypothesis he would go free.” (Whart. Conflict of Laws, sec. 876.) Again he says: “Thus it has been held that the originator of a nuisance to a stream in one country which affects such stream in another country is liable to prosecution in the latter country; that the author of a libel uttered by him in one country and published by others in another country from which he is absent at the time is liable in the latter country; that he who on one side of a boundary shoots a person on the other side is amenable in the country where the blow is received; that he who in one State employs an innocent agent to obtain goods by false pretenses in another State is amenable in the latter State; and that he who sells through agents, guilty or innocent, lottery tickets in another State is amenable in the State of the sale, though he was absent from such State personally. In England we have the same principle affirmed by the highest judicial authority.” And he quotes. Lord Campbell as saying, “that a person may, by the employment as well of a conscious as of an unconscious agent, render himself amenable to the law of England when he comes within the jurisdiction of our courts;” and Sir R. Phillimore as saying, “It is a monstrous thing that any technical rule of venue should prevent justice from being done in this country on a criminal for an offense which was perpetrated here but the execution of which was concocted in another country.” (Whart. Conflict of Laws, sec. 877. See also Adams v. People, 1 Comstock N. Y., 173; Corn monwealth v. McLoon, 101 Mass., 1; Ham v. State, 4 Texas Ct. App., 645; Rogers v. The State, 10 Texas Ct. App., 655.)

Mr. Cooley, in his great work on Constitutional Limitations, treating of territorial limitation to legislative authority, says: “The legislative authority of every State must spend its force within the territorial limits of the State. * * * ' It cannot

provide for the punishment as crimes of acts committed beyond the State boundary, because .such acts, if offenses at all, must be offenses against the sovereignty within whose limits they have been done.” But, after laying down this doctrine, in the ¿very next sentence he says: “But if the consequences, of an .'unlawful act committed outside the State have reached their ultimate and injurious result within it, it seems that the perpetrator may be punished as an offender against such State.” (Cooley’s Const. Lim., 4.ed., pp. 154-5.) If this latter rule be the law, then it is a solecism to say that the Legislature cannot so declare it by express enactment.

Story, in his Conflict of Laws, says: “Although the penal laws of every country are in their nature local, yet an offense may be committed in one sovereignty in violation of the laws of another, and if the offender be afterwards found in the latter State, he may be punished according to the laws thereof, and the fact that he owes allegiance to another sovereignty is no .bar to the indictment.” (Story on the'Conflict of Laws,-4 ed., section 6256.)

The offense charged in the indictment against appellant comes clearly within the terms of Article 454 of the Penal Code. Had it been committed by one of our own citizens within this State, there then could be no question as to his liability. Here, the defendant in effect says: “You may try and convict-your own citizens for the same act I have committed, but you cannot try and punish me, because what I have done, though equally as violative of the spirit and letter of the law, is still not triable in your court because it was committed in another State, and your Legislature could not pass a law which could embrace me within its pains and penalties.” We can see no valid reason why the Legislature of the State of Texas could not assert, as it has done in Article 454 supra, her jurisdiction over wrongs and crimes with regard to the land titles of the State, no matter whether the perpetrator of the crime was at the time of its consummation within or without her territorial limits. Such acts are offenses against the State of Texas and her citizens only, and can properly be tried only in her courts. It may in fact be no crime against the State in which it is perpetrated; and if it is,

under such circumstances as we are considering, that other State would have no interest in punishing it, and would rarely, if ever, do so. When this forgery was committed in Louisiana, eo instanti primeras committed against, and injury done to, the State of TeSs^B^cause it affected title to lands within her sovereignty.

Our conclusion is that.the Legislature had authority to adopt the act in question; that "the same is in violation of no law superior thereto; and that the jurisdiction thereby conferred can be rightly exercised by the courts of this State. The defendant appears to us to come clearly within the scope of that jurisdictian. He has been, as far as we can see, fairly and impartially tried under the law, and legally convicted according to the evidence exhibited in the record. We have found no error for which a reversal of the judgment should be had, and it is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Hurt, J.,

dissents upon the ground that the Legislature had no authority to pass Article 454, Penal Code.

Opinion delivered November 22, 1882.  