
    The State v. Sullivan.
    Depositions or written agreements of the facts, by the parties or their attorneys, are not admissible whore tho State is a pai'iy; and tho oral testimony of a given number of witnesses is required by tho statute, as in oases of suits to establish headright claims
    The Hoard of Land Commissioners, under tbo act of 1837, had authority to grant an additional quantity of land, suifieiont to make up the quantum to which the party was entitled, whore i lie had received a previous grant for less than he was entitled to.
    It seems that a single person, owning negroes, was Hie head of a family, within the meaning of tho colonization laws of Coahuila and Texas. But, Quere?
    
    Appeal from Milam. This was a suit under the act of the 4th February, 1841, for tho re-establishment of a certificate which had not been recommended by tho investigating Hoard of Commissioners as a genuine and legal claim against the government. It appeared from the petition that the petitioner emigrated to the country in 1835; that lie had been from that lime and still was at the commencement of the suit a citizen; that he was and still is the head of a family; that he had received a grant of one-third of a league of land, (leaving it to be inferred that this was issued before the commencement of the revolution,) ami that he had obtained from a Board of Band Commissioners a cert ilieafe for ( lie additional two-l birds of a lengua and labor of land, to which ho conceived himself entitled; and the «aid certificate not being recommended, lie. prayed that the same may he now established.
    There was an agreed statement of facts, and from this, among other matters, it appeared that the petitioner performed all tlie duties required of ldui as a patriotic citizen ; that ite had never been married, and that Bis family consisted of negroes; and that the land sued for was the quantity (in addition to tlie tidl'd of a league previously granted) that would make the amount to which, as the lieucl of a family, he was entitled. The cause was taken and retained for some time tinder advisement by the court, hut was finally submitted to a jury, who found for the plaintiff.
    The defendant, at tlie trial, objected to the admission in evidence of the statement, of facts, as agreed upon between tlie attorneys of tlie parties, but tlie objection was overruled, and exceptiou was taken.
    And tlie defendant also objected to an instruct ion charging the jury, in effect, tliai. it' die plaintiff' was in die country at (he declaration of independence, and a single man, owning negroes at the time, and was entitled to the quantum of laud allowed by law, lie was entitled to recover.
    
      Attorney General, for appellant.
    I. The written admission of tlie district attorney of die. facts of plaintiff’s title was so clearly “to tlie prejudice of the “interests of the State.” and therefore in contravention of law, and is of a character so often reprobated by this court, the Supreme Court of the Republic, by the Congress of that government, and by tie' Legislature of this State, as scarcely to require argument or authority oil this occasion to support die first error assigned. (Hart. Dig., arts. G27, 2039, 2043; Ilepublic v. Riley, Dallam’s Dig.)
    II. Tiie second assignment of error is plainly sustainable, and should not only produce a reversal of this judgment, hut when, in connection with it, we look at the facts stated by plaintiff in his petition, to entitle him to the “augmentation ” asked for should lead to a dismissal of his suit in this court.
    It is deemed only necessary oil the part of the State, in support of this assignment, to say that no law of the Republic or State entitles the plaintiff to the “augmentation” lie seeks here, and to refer to all the provisions of onr law bearing on the question and ask.that they may he read. This is all the argument we have to offer. (10th see. Geni. Provisions Const.., Hart. Dig-., p. 38; Hart. Dig., arts. 1859, 18G5, 1800, 1920.)
   HempiitlIi. Ch. J.

There is no doubt that the first assignment rests on substantial grounds. The admission of a written statement or agreement as to the fact s 'is certainly erroneous. Tlie jurisdiedon to hear and determine those land claims against tlie government is special, and the prescribed mode of its exercise must be strictly pursued. The statute declares, for instance— and it lias always been held to be obligatory — that die facts substantiating the claim must lie proven by two or more credible witnesses. One witness, however unblemished his character for veracity, is not sufficient. And what is material to the point under consideration is, the statute has declared that the testimony shall he oral, and that only, and t.lms effectually excludes any other character of evidence. Depositions or written statements of the, facts, which should be proven by witnesses, are inadmissible, and the objection to tlie introduction of such evidence should have been sustained.

Tlie next assignment presents a question of more difficulty. .The. language in which the instruction is couched, as embodied in the exception, is scarcely intelligible. The. court is represented as charging lliat if lie was a single man, owning negroes at tlie date of the declaration of independence, and was entitled to tlie quaul nm of land allowed by law, he was entitled to recover. The meaning of this instruction (if it have any) is, that if a single man, owning negroes at tlie date of the declaration of independence, was entitled to a league and labor of land, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover in this suit. This would leave to the jury tho determination of the legal proposition, whether a single man, with negroes under his control, constituted the head of a family or not. This point was for the decision of the court and not of the jury.

But it may he presumed that tlie charge as given is not accurately stated in the exception. At all events, the objection as stated in the assignment of error is only to that portion of the instruction which charged that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Tlie ground of this objection is, that' the plaintiff, owning negroes at the time, received from tlie former government one-tliird of a league as a single man; that lie has not subsequently married, nor has there been any other supervening fact which by law entitles him to the augmentation claimed in tlie petition.

If it he admitted that under the former government a single man owning or holding negroes was entitled, as the head of a family, to a league and labor of land,’ and it appearing from the facts of this case that the plaintiff, though thus entitled, secured but one-third of a league, the question then for consideration is whether, under tho land law of 18IS7, a Board of Land Commissioners was authorized to approve this claim for tlie additional two-thirds of a league and labor as a genuine claim against tlie government. It is immaterial what may he tlie justice or equity of the claim. It cannot be sustained unless the board or the court, as its successor, have, authority, express or implied, under the provisions of tlie statute to hear and determine this class of claims.

There is no express provision authorizing or prohibiting a grant of this character. The hoard, under the 11th section, is required to investigate all claims on the government for headlights to lands; and they were authorized to grant to any person or persons a certificate of their claim or claims, setting forth in tlie, certificate tho amount of laud the party is entitled to. The words used in conferring this power, especially when construed with reference to other provisions of the statute and of the constitution, do not imply that'the court is restricted alone to the investigation of the highest amount which can he claimed under a headriglit, viz, a league and labor for a head of a family, and a third of á league for a single mail. The constitution authorized all citizens who might have previously received a league as heads of families, or a quarter of a league as single men, to receive sucli additional quantity as would malee tlieir grants equal to a league and labor or to one-tliird of a league of land. There was no separate provision in the, statute authorizing tlie hoard to examine tho claims to such augmentations. Tliej' wore heard and determined under the general authority to investigate claims for headlights. Tho apparent intention was to give authority to investigate all claims for headlights, or for any portion of such rights to which tlie applicants might deem themselves entitled. There was no power to investigate any oilier claims hut headlights. The action of the boards was restricted within the limits of this class of claims; but over this they had full authority, and it is but a fair deduction that, if they could grant under the. general authority to investigate claims for headlights, cither a league and labor or a labor alone, as the parties might be respectively entitled, they had competent authority to grant a certificate for any intermediate portion of a headlight, if (lie applicant ivas, under tlie law, entitled to the amount claimed. This is an equitable interpretation of the grant of power under the statute. It is not repugnant, either expressly or by legitimate inference, to any of the provisionsof the law, and it is 'commended by every ■consideration of policy ami justice to onr adoption. Had the applicant in this case been a married man, and had he, from ignorance of his rights or the perverseness of ihe authorities under the former government, been shorn of his league and labor, and restricted to one-third of a league, the hardship of the refusal of the board, under tlie new government., (o grant him a certificate for that portion of his league and labor of which, through his ignorance, or by official iniquity or misconstruction, he had been deprived, would be most striking and flagrant. But this would not be sufficient to authorize tlie board or court Io grant relief, unless they were empowered to do so by the law. Wo are of opinion, however, that the board, and the court as its successor, had amliorily to investigate this class of claims, and there was no error in the charge on the point to which the objection is raided, viz, that tile plaintiff', ■on (he facts, wis entitled to recover.

But these fads were not established by competent proof, and for the error of ■admitting written evidence the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  