Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 41

1875.] TINSLEY V. BUSI CO. 41
Statement of the case.
first bond does not release the securities on the first bond for liability
on account of a default of the collector occurrinilg after the period
when the second bond should have been executed.
2. PAROL EVIDENCE OF TAX ROLLS, WHEN ADMISSIBLE.-InI Suit
against an assessor on his official bond, parol evidence is admissible to
show the amounts of taxes assessed, when the tax-rolls were last
seen under the control of the assessor, and that they were not pro
duced after service on him of subpoena duces tecum.
3. CERTIFICATE OF STATE COMPTROLLER, WHEN NOT EVIDENCE.The
certificate of the State comptroller of the amount of taxable property
in a county, and the amount of poll and county taxes levied for
a particular year, not being a certified copy of a record in his office,
is not admissible in evidence.
4. In a suit against a principal and his securities, the principal (who was
present when the trial began) during its progress became sick and
unable to attend court. The defendant's counsel asked to have the
cause withdrawn from the jury, in order to applyfor a continuance,
on account of their inability to procure the evidence of the principal,
which was refused, no diligence being shown to procure the testimony
of the witness prior to trial: Held, that there was no error.
APPEAL from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. M.
D. Ector.
Suit on assessor and. collector's bond. A question rose
on the trial of this cause as to admissibility in evidence
of a certificate signed by A. Bledsoe, Comptroller of the
State, certifying to facts in regard to taxes which appeared
of record in his office, but having no reference to any copy
from the records accompanying the certificate.
The facts of this case will be found carefully stated in
the opinion, except the testimony of Kilgore, the only witness
on the subject of indebtedness. He testified that,
after the expiration of McCammon's term of office, he was
present at an attempted settlement of the account of
McCamrmon with the treasurer of Rusk county; that
McCammon and his deputies, the treasurer and witness,
were present; that witness was then a member of the
County Court, and had been appointed to examine the
books, rolls, and accounts of McCammon; that it appeared
from the examination that McCammon was indebted to