{"character_count": 2853, "word_count": 481, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9491999745368958], "ccnet_perplexity": [608.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
wholly unpaid, ? certainly and distinctly ne- gatiyes the idea, ihatit has been paid by ei- ther party and, therefore, 1t is sufficient, notwithstanding the language used by the Ple4der IS not in every respect the same as that found in the assignment of the breach III the most approved precedenls iii similar eases. The declaration is, therefore, i'll our opinion, in every respect, sufficient ia law. to entide the plaintiff to maintain the action against the defendant, and the demurrer there to, ought to have been oyerruled Judr- fment reversed.

 PENDLEToN IS. THE SrArE-ON MoTIoy.

 Jan'y l5.-Per SEBASTIAN. J. A motion to dismiss this case has been filed by the Attorney General, upon the ground that no affidavit was made and filed by the appellant m the Circuit Court previous to taking the appeal. The provisions ofthe Revised Code. ?. 638, sec. l42, embrace only appeals taken from final judgments in civil cases. There IS no such affidavit required in criminal cases, and apart from the conclusion drawn from the absence of any enactment requiring it, the nature of thesafIidavit shows its want of application to criminal proceedings. Motion overruled.

 Hays gS THE COUNTY OF PoPE-oN Morrow.

 Jan'y l5.-Per SEBASTIAN, J. A motion

 has been made by the Attorney General on behalf of the county of Pope to dismiss the cause on the ground that no appeal lies from final judgment of a County Court to this Court

 The 2d section of the 9th article of the Con- s.itntioa declares that '' the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction only except in cases otherwise directed by this Constitu- ton, which shall be eo-extensive with the State, under such restrictions and regulations as shall be prescribed by lawo This iuris- dlctlon of the Supreme Court must either be exercised by and through the use of appro- priate writs named in the subsequent part of that section, or else by some other means provided by legislative enactment The use of the writs there specified is an affirmative grant of constitutional jurisdiction, with which the legislature cannot interfere, as has been fully considered and decided by the Court during the present term in the case of Philip l. ,4nth0ny ca partc. IL IS however compe tent for the legislature to provide other means than the use of those writs for the purpose of revising the proceedings of inferior Courts, and in such cases the remedy so provided depends entirely upon the legislature for its existence, who may modify or abolish 1t at pleasure. This doctrine was established in the case of he State us. Gratam, ,4rk. Rep, 428. This case comes within the prin- ciples, and inasmuch as the legislature have not by any law conferred the right to appeal from judgments of the County Courts, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this cause upon the appeal Case dismissed.