The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1878-04-25

Term, 1878.
No. 2537-Tarrant County V. It. B.
Jones, Sheriff; appeal from Tarrant.
Opinion by Gould, J.
The only question raised by the rec
ord in this case was settled in the case
of Fayette County v. Fares, A Tex,
514, ito the effect that "tha acts of 1S4G
(P. D.. 5115), of 1860 (P. D., 25OS) and
of 1854 (P. D., ....), on the subject
of costs of prisoners in Jail are not
cumulative, but each statute must be re-
garded as revising the subject matter
of the former oae, and as substitute
therefor. And that under the act of
1864, in force, the action of the county
court upon the sheriff's account for
board and guarding of prisoners in Jail
is conclusive, in the absence of allega-
tions that the county court had abused
its discretion in the matter, or that the
amount allowed was not sufficient for
the support of such prisoners"
Reversed and remanded.
April 16, 1878.
No. 3577-Jeff Aber v. F. NJ. Warden {;
appeal from Montague. Opinion by
Gould, J.
Held, 1. That where it is sought to
restrain execution sale of property lev
led ON under final judgment on for
feited bail bond by Injunction or other
mode, an appeal taken in such case
must be to the Court of Appeals and
not to the Supreme Court, since the
question is too closely connected with
the judgment on the bail bond to be
separable from it, the enforcement of
such bonds being regarded as incident
al to the criminal case in which they
are given.
% That the proper mode of proce-
dure where it is sought to regulate pro-
ceedings had under an execution is
sued upon final judgment on forfeit
ed bail bond is by motion in the prin-
cipsl case asking the court to construe
its judgment aud to regulate the en-
forcement of its process, and not by in
junction, and the action of the court
on such motion would be revisable In
the same court in which the judgment
itself would be revised, viz, the Court
of Appeals; and the mere fact that an
Injunction was found necessary to pro-
tect the defendant in execution cannot
operate 10 give the Supreme Court ju-
risdiction.
Appeal dismissed.
April 16, 1878.
No. 3669-D. Y. Mckinney ct ais. v.
Charles Abbott ct ais. A; appeal from
Grayson. Opinion by Roberts, G. ].
Held, That where an intestate de-
cedent had neither wife, children,
father, mother, brothers, sisters, or de.
scendants of either, grandparents or
great grandparents, maternal or pateT-
nal, living at the time OF his death,
his estate shall be divided into two
moieties, one moiety to be given to the
descendants of the great-grandfather
and great-grandmother on the paternal
side, and the other moiety to the de-
scendants of the great grandfather and
great-grandmother on the maternal
side, the intention of our statute of
descent and distribution (P. D., 3419,
explained by Hartley's Dig, 5Sl, p.
217, being that, in case there should be
no direct heirs, an interstate decedent's
estate should be divided equally be-
tween the kindred on the psternal and
maternal sides, notwithstanding that
the kindred on one side might be near
er than those on the other. In this re-
spect our laws of descent and dIstribu-
ton sre more in harmony with The
cipH law of Spain than with the com
mon law of England, the leading object
OF which latter is to cast the inheu
lance upon the nearest male heir on the
fathers side. Jones's Heirs v. Bar
nett's Heirs, 80 Tex, 637.)
Reversed and remanded.
Anril 16. 1873.