With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and found that he had purged himself of the contempt without prejudice to his and the Bexar County Center’s pending appeal of the June 30, 2003 order. On September 25, 2003, another panel of this court denied the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Evans and the Bexar County Center, finding that Evans and the Bexar County Center had an adequate remedy by means of their appeal. Evans later filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to direct the trial court to vacate the contempt judgment against him. Before oral argument, this court consolidated this second mandamus proceeding with the appeal by Evans and the Bexar County Center. II. Issues Pkesented In their appeal, Evans and the Bexar County Center (collectively referred to hereinafter as t W. 915, 917 (1925) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we hold that the Bex-ar County

A: holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county
B: holding that the county had no standing to sue the state to recover taxes illegally obtained from citizens unless the money belongs to the county
C: recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions 
D: holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county
A.