When it appears upon the face of a judgment that a party appeared in person when the case was called for trial, and there is no direct evidence that such recital and adjudication that the person did so appear is not true, the court will not be warranted in setting aside such judgment many years after the judgment had been rendered. Ingle v. Bell, 84 Tex. 463, 464; East Texas Land Co. v. Graham, 24 Texas Civ. App. 521[ 24 Tex. Civ. App. 521], 528; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Brooks, 78 Tex. 331, 332; Laird v. Thomas, 22 Tex. 276, 280; DeWalt v. Snow, 25 Tex. 320 [ 25 Tex. 320], 321; Chester v. Walters, 30 Tex. 53 [ 30 Tex. 53], 54; Lawler v. White, 27 Tex. 250 [ 27 Tex. 250], 253; Warren v. Foust, 36 Texas Civ. App. 59[ 36 Tex. Civ. App. 59], 60; Willis v. Lewis, 28 Tex. 185 [ 28 Tex. 185], 191; Galveston, H. S. A. Ry. v. Walker, 85 S.W. Rep., 28, 31. The husband alone may control the dedication of a homestead for himself and family, and it is the duty of the court, when requested, to charge the jury that unless they find from the evidence that the husband intended the property as the homestead, they should return a verdict in favor of the defendants.
Sayles' Civil Statutes, 1282, 1283, Act of March 20, 1893; Laws 23d. Leg., p. 31; Wilson v. Zeigler, 44 Tex. 657. As to the effect of the recital in the order appointing the receiver, that the parties entered their appearance, see Ingle v. Bell, 84 Tex. 463; 3 Willson's C.C., 382; Thompson v. Bishop, 29 Tex. 154. 5. Parties who are not in fact fighting or opposing each other in a suit, although they may appear on opposite sides, are not entitled to separate jury lists, and are not entitled to exercise separate peremptory challenges to the jury, and where it appears that opposite parties to a suit have pooled their interests, they should not be allowed six peremptory challenges each.