OISSEIiL V. PHLASKI OOUNTY. 891 �CiSSELL V. PULASKI CollNTT. {Circuit Court, K D. Arkansas. October Term, 1881.) 1 CODNTT WaBKANTS — CANCELLATIOH— NOTIOB Requiked. �The notice required to be given of the order of the county court calling in warrants for cancellation and reissue, under a statute, in Arkansas, is for the beneflt of the warrant-holders ; and the county, which is suitor in the proceed- ing, cannot object that Jegal notice of such call was not given. �2. Notice — Publication, how Pbovbd — Affidavit. �The affldavit, to prove the publication of a legal notice in judicial proceed- ings, must show that the paper in which the publication was made is one authorized to publish such notices, and that the affiant sustains the relation to the paper required by the statute to authorize him to make the affldavit. �3. Same — Constedctive Service — Facts Must Afeirmativelt Appeabl" �When it is sought to conclude a party by constructive service, by publica- tion, every fact necessary to the exercise of jurisdiction, based on such serv- ice, must afflrmatively appear in the mode prescribed by the statute. �4. Samb— Deeecttve Proop Cannot bb Supplied by Parol Tbstimont. �If the proof of publication contained in the record is defective, it is not competent for another court to receive paroi testimony to supply the omission. �5. Same— Recokd Evidence of Notice— Presttmptions. �The recital of due notice in the record of a proceeding, under special stat- utory authority, must be read in connection with that part of the record which gives the oflScial evidence prescribed by statute. No presumption will be allowed that other or different evidence was produced ; and, if the evidence in the record will not justify the recital, it will be disregarded. �A statute in Arkansas authorizes the county court at stated periods to oall in all the outstanding warrants of the county "in order to redeem, cancel, reissue, or classify the same." An order for the call is required to be made by the county court, and notice of the time fixed for the presentation of warrants under the call must be given in a mode provided by the act, and all warrants not presented at or before that time are barred. The plaintifif sued on warrants of the defendant county reissued under a call in 1875, The county answered (1) that there was no sufScient notice of the oall of 1875, and that the reissue of the warrants by the county court under the supposed call of that year was illegal and void; and (2) that a valid call was made in 1877, and the warrants in suit were not pre- sented under that call as required by law and the order of the county court, and were therefore barred. �John McClure, for plaintif. �B. C. Broivii, for defendant. ��� �
