argued that the first trial court had erred in refusing to join the offenses in one trial. This court agreed and reversed, on the ground that both counties had jurisdiction over both offenses. See also Wilson v. State, 298 Ark. 608, 770 S.W.2d 123 (1989) (reiterating the law that separate crimes committed in one continuous episode in more than one county may be tried in either county and require joinder in one county if the defendant requests it). Similarly, in Patterson v. State, 306 Ark. 385, 815 S.W.2d 377 (1991), this court held that although the murder occurred in Greene County, Craighead County had jurisdiction to try the appellant because some of the acts requisite to the murder occurred in Craighead County. See also Pilcher v. State, 303 Ark. 335, 796 S.W.2d 845 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Thrash v. State, 291 Ark. 575, 726 S.W.2d 283
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  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 holding that the grant county prosecutor had a statutory duty to be legal advisor to the county clerk even though she was not embroiled in litigation in which the county was the real party in interest 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 holding that where the murder and robbery occurred in one county but the plan was hatched in another county and the body was subsequently returned to that other county both counties had jurisdiction to try the appellant