
    Russell’s heirs v. Mason.
    The lower cart road from Nacogdoches to the Sabine was found by the jury to beihe true northern boundary of Zavala’s colony, and the verdict was sustained. (Note 51.)
    There is nothing in this case to make it an exception to the rule so often laid down by this court that it is peculiarly the province of the jury, in ease of a conflict of the evidence of an equal grade and dignity, to weigh the evidence and find the truth of the contested fact. (Note 52.)
    Appeal from Shelby. .The appellants, who were plaintiffs below, claimed under an original title issued by George Antonio Nixon, commissioner of Zavala's colony, in 183ñ. The question on which tiie case turned was, whether the land was within the limits of Zavala’s colony. Zavala's contract called for Nacogdoches, thence by the cart road to the, Sabine, if, did not appear that the line liad ever been run, and it was shown that then* were two cart roads from Nacogdoches to tiie Sabine, and that the land in controversy lay between them. There, was some conflicting testimony; the jury found for the defendant; motion for new trial overruled. This ease was before this court once before, and will be found in 1 Tex. R., 721-
    
      Noth 61. — Where part of a colonial headritrht lay within the colony and part without and the boundary of the colony was well defined, it was held that the grant was void as to the part lying beyond the limits of the colony. (Hamilton v. A very, 2(1 T., 612)
    Noth 62. — Ohevaillier v. Denson, post, 430; Long v. Steiger, post, 466; Gamage v. Trawick, 19 T., 66; Stewart v. Hamilton, 19 T., 96; George r. Lemon, 19 T., 16:1; Anderson v. Anderson, 23 T„ 03!); Baldridge a. Gordon, 21T., ‘2SS; Howard a. Ray, 26 T., 88; Adams a. George, 25 T. Supp., 374; Floyd a. Rice, 28 T., 341; Stroud a. Springfield, 23 T., 049; Robinson a, Davenport, 40 T., 383.
    
      J. M. Ardrey and Henderson & Jones, for appellants.
    
      O. H. Roberts, for appellee.
    Wiieeler, J., did not sit in this case.
   Lipscomb, J.

The only question presented is the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial, and the disputed fact was the northern boundary of Zavala’s colony. The contract is sufficiently clear that this line was to start from Nacogdoches on the cart road running- to the Sabine. It seems, however, that in 1820, when the contract was made between Zavala and the Gov-crumcnt, before reaching the Sabine, the road forked, and there were then two cart roads to the Sabine, and the jury had to determine from the evidence which of these cart roads was the one intended as the boundary, and they found that the lower road was the lino.

In so finding, it is believed that they neither found without evidence nor against evidence. There were other calls in the contract that fully vindicated the verdict, because, notwithstanding a considerable conflict in the testimony as to which was the cart road, the calls were wholly irreconcilable with the upper cart road.

There is nothing in this ease to make it an exception to the rule so often laid down by this court that it is peculiarly the province of the jury, in cases of a conflict of the evidence of an equal grade and dignity, to weigh the evidence and find the truth of the contested fact.

Judgment affirmed.  