
    The State of Texas v. Candeleria Ramerez Vela et al.
    1. Grant.—A certificate of the Secretary of State, in the State of Tamaulipas, on May 11,1831, that in a list of names of persons who had denounced lauds as recognized by the Government there was one as follows: “Without survey on the other side of the Rio Grande. Sitios 4. The citizen Santiago Vela, in the estancia of said Ygnacio. City of Guerrero, 14th February, 1831,” is of itself no part of the proceedings in a title to land.
    
      2. Grant—Expediente—Evidence.—Verbal testimony of the existence and contents of an expediente as part of a title to land claimed in proceedings under act of August 15, 1870, held incompetent.
    Appeal from Travis. Tried below before Hon. J. P. Richardson.
    
      James H. Bell, and Chandler, Carleton & Robertson, for appellants.
    
      George Clark, Attorney General, and Peeler & Fisher, for the State.
   Roberts, Chief Justice.

The evidence of right, filed with the petition in this case, was the certificate of the Secretary of State, in the State of Tamaulipas, on the 11th of May, 1831, that in a fist of names of persons who had denounced lands as recognized by the Government, there was one as follows: “ "Without survey on the other side of the Rio Grande. Sitios 4. The citizen Santiago Vela, in the estancia of said Vgnaeio. City of Guerrero, 14th February, 1831.»

This of itself is no part of the proceedings in a title to land. At most, it will serve to indicate the claim of land sought to be established in this suit.

The proof, under this claim, was the verbal evidence of witnesses, to the effect that they knew that an expediente had been completed, under the decree No. 24 of 1833, and sent to Victoria, where the Governor of Tamaulipas, in 1848, made a concession upon it, which was brought back and delivered to the interested party. This evidence was objected to on the trial. It was not shown that a copy of the proceedings, constituting the expediente, could not be produced, which, if they exist, would be the proper evidences of right to the land claimed.

The evidence was not competent, and was insufficient to establish the claim to the land. The reasons for this opinion have been given in the cases of this class previously decided at this term.

Reversed and remanded.  