Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during part of the Galveston term, 1880, the Austin term, 1880, and a part of the Tyler term, 1880. Volume 53. Page: 398

                                
398            STATE OF TEXAS v. DE GRESS. [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
$500, the district court under the constitution had jnrisdictico
to try it; and that part of the act which directs the proceeding
to be in the district court is not in conflict with the constitution.
 Const., art. ', sec. 8.
Actions to try the right to an office, as distinguished from
contested election cases, have before the present constitution
pertained to the jurisdiction of the district court. Banton v.
Wilson, 4 Tex., 400; Bradley v. MlcCrabb, Dallam, 506.
Though the action be in the name of the state, the "' matter
in controversy'" is still the right to the office, and if that
amounts in value to $500, the case comes within the constitutional
jurisdiction given the district court.
Were it necessary to do so, in order to uphold the jurisdiction
in such a case of the district court, the court which in
this state has always been the main tribunal for the trial of
cases both civil and criminal, this might, perhaps, be held to
be a suit in behalf of the state to recover a forfeiture.
The clauses of the constitution defining the jurisdiction of
the district court should be liberally construed, with due regard
to the fact that on this court, as the "great reservoir " of
jurisdiction, has heretofore devolved the body of litigation in
this state. Especially may a narrow and literal construction
be rejected, when the result is to leave no tribunal competent
to take jurisdiction of important cases arising under legislative
enactments.
Tunstall v. State was decided under a statute enacted previous
to the present constitution, and is otherwise unlike the
present case. Trigg v. State, on the contrary, was a case under
our present constitution, and, in so far as it is analogous to the
present case, supports the jurisdiction of the district court and
of this court.
The motion to dismiss has, in accordance with the views
now expressed, been overruled.
The district court sustained exceptions to the information,
and in support of its action counsel for appellee submit the
following proposition: "The city council, under the charter, is