Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1943 )

P
686
‘;
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
I
AUSTIN
! mxwrablo H. V. pitmsn
; county bdltor
tryette county
I* Orrngs, Paxas
Pub110 end devote a
or the& tinu to
ties rhlle on duty
oun use and baneSit?
%eoondt- In 8 oourityuherr oounty OiflOial8
le aompenuted oa uluy basis, oan a County At-
torney o h u g e4 oont* p er mlla fo r use o f h lr llto-
mobile uhile attondltagJustlac Court ln the rulous
morsble Il. V. Pltnan, pqo P
J. P. Preolaot* la the oellntyt If so, QUI 1t be
r
tued 8s oort8 8g8lnrt ths defendant vhsn ooavlo-
tloar 18 had Or her vhat fund should it be pbld?'
8eotlon 40, lrtllok XVI of the ut4t* coLut1tut1on,
i provlQ* I5 putt
"lo person -11 hold or lxoroleo, lt the
lm tlJB8, nor. than OM olvll 0fSlor of oalolu-
aent, exorpt that of jurtloe of the peaoe, oouaty
00mmi88lcaer, notuy uVU0 urd postmaster, . . .
unlay ot?mrvlu lpeo% +lly provided herrin.
. . .
Vlth rderenor to the foregoing oonstltution81
vlrlon the 8U eme Court Of ‘LtXAs in th 08se Of Oeal V* G&p-
son, et 81.. r 4 8. V. 365, uldr
.'. . . Doer this mesa that *IIlnounlbeat obn
hold either o? the oSilo*r nsmed, U lt t& 88ae
my OthU OfflOO, OF the b 0~ 0dyhOid tV0
OfilO~8 T&M both ~8 8IBOIig thO8e 8peOiiiOdq
1I de*lgnstedT Vo think the former is the proper
oozutruotlon.
u0ti0ttn6 0rZJ%0?f~& 2i%%ZoF~
l845, ofl861,8ad of1866,uhfoh la the ram. in
lroh of thorn lnstrImmt8, @ad roads 88 follow8:
. . . It is alem the under thl8 rrot1on @I&y
ustloo OS the puse ml&at hold m0-r offlo*.
H ovoll v* Vllaoo, 26 tu. 59. TLu offloe of jus-
tloe Of the peroe V8IImode sn 8xo*ptlon to the
gweralrtio, an4tho lnforsnoe truathe us0 of
the r*rw ung l la the pms*nt Constitution
rptLthe abro 3i tioorof other offiorr, 18 strong
thAt itV8s notw8Jit in8nyMnMr toOhUge the
genubl rule, but rtsrolyto sate addltloaalu-
Thb other ooprtruotlonwould ntsrlally
3ii$L gener81 dr00t of tb 0v1*10& It
- Would ~OVbnt *Van 8 jUSti Of tG pabee from
holding my other offloe l x o vpoam
t of those rpe-
olllly named, 8ad vould be 8 r8dioti dopsrtwe
frOa thb prOrislOM OS 8I.lrprbvloua OOiWltUtlOM
01th 1e *Am8lubjeot. coIut1tutloll,l&g, Art1010
3, 8eotion 30. Ir the l ti tlu provl*lon
I in qw*tlon had been 0 *e or jurtim of
,-
i“
,
ganorsblr B. V. Pltmn, p-e f
thme my hwe beon a o rdoubt o
th 8
pot F’
z lte*4
8onrtruotlanJ but the romls 8re e x o ep t
bnd they lndlobto thbt it V&S intended
that'. &on al&&t lwtully hold my otfloe, and
in 8dditlm th e r eto lltbr oi the oSSlae* enuwrst-
ful4 hold too offloes 8t th* s8m tlxis,when both
uuo ofrlo*r speoliloally n8wd ia the seotlon.
If ths tilrgatloas of the petition u-0 true, v*
8re olrrrrlyof ths oplnlon th8t the &ppel&nt did
not vsoate his ofrlos of oounty oomisrloner by
aooepting thst oi asyor. 8uoh vo understandto
hue born the ruling OS the oowt bolos. But, be-
08uso ths 8ppe~sAt did notmke all the SKmberb oi
the ocdmni88ioner8~ oourt party to the suit, the
jud&WAt lb 8f~1nabd~’ ,;
tii deputwit hbkivrltton numerous oplnlo~r hold-
lag that orrt~ln oountp offloialr a?e not prohibited br 18~
fron holding the offloe Oi notary publle uhilo holding theta
r** otlve 0fri0*8. ~OIIOY~ QA the other hsnd, this deput-
menr has nltkn oplnlon8 hoidiry that OertUn aounty offlo*
w* laooa tlbk with tha 0rri00 of notary publla ad that a
psrron ho G if@ sash ofrloo oannot at the bus the hold the
office ai notuy publlo. Ta r lxaaplo, it 1s held that the OS-
ii08 of oouaty olerk ml/or deput oounty olerk ~8 lna
ble rlth ths offloe of notmy pubL o uid thAt 8 person ho
tha ofrloe of oount 81-k 8~&or daputy oount olerk oamot
8t the e&w tlae hoId the offloe of notary pubL 08 This do-
tment has held that the otflae of notrry pubUo and oounty
#?rsuurer &re aot lnoomp&tlbk aad thst the oounty trururer
18 not prohlblted by 1811trae holding tha offloe of notary
pad10 *hik h0idLng th0 0frl08 *r o0my trubw0r. I~W thr
purp0ser oi this Opinion we do not dmn it nroe88bry to enumer-
ate or mention all the.opinions rsgudlng your first auestlon.
In Vie0 0r the foregoing ruthorltlesyou uo rerpeot-
Sully wlvlsedthet it.18 the oplnlan of thlr departnmkttbat
the offloes of oouaty lxUtor r**l*t~t oounty auditor, ooun-
ty treuwr and 40 uty sheriff ue not inooap8tlb,‘~t’$~~h.a
ottloe of notary pu tUo and th a tl person ho1
oiiloer @an at the lme tlms leg* 2 y hold the
All of the *boor mentioned orflolala
Who 8~ duly ~uallfled ~otarler publie ary kpll ohapge tba
tees provided by law tor their rervloes as such vL n 8otlng
in the 08pbOity o f l no ta r y publid.
689
Iionorable RI. V. Pitaan, page 4
The oounty o??lofalr of Fayette County are ooqpen-
r*ted on an SAAwl uluy b8818.
Vlth ~SfUWlOe t0 fOW *eOond MStiOA JOW OttOA-
Lion 18 dir-ted to our Opinion No. 0-S 40, holding 'that the
oamlr~loners~ oourt of lkulthCounty vould have luthorlty to
feq
footh
rrle
ctyou tha oounty attorney rraronablo neaossmy trweling ox-
ttendly justi oowtr 0r the oounty 01~3 that
ho aethod o.? oompenut on of ruoh expenwr bllowed, ii any,
would bo for ths ~aPrtrrlonerr’ court to determlno irr their
eound dlroretlon.
The rtrtutes ar* lll*nt ** to the rste plr mile to
be alloved the aounty rttornsy. Howover, in vlu of our Opin-
ion lo. O-3670 8nd Artlolo 38899, Seotlon (b), YerAM’ kmotat-
ud Cl~ll 8tatut*r, it is our 0 inloa that the oommlr8loners~
ciourt OS F8y*tt* County bar 8u?horlty to allow the oounty lt-
torney rearonable and ae1oers8ry traveling upwmer for attend-
ing jurtloe oourts 0r tbr oouty. The saount, and the aethod
Of OOiU&Nlt~tiOA or ruoh e M ISllloud, I? sny, would be ?or
the oamalssloners~oourtY o drtemlne in their round dlrorrtlon.
Ilk olxpe~8e8
h o¬ la lly be taxed against ths dafuubat.
E?r uo h lxpe~~8 are al T owed by the oomnluloners~ oowt, ruoh
a:xpe~ur must be peld out of the offloars’ r*Ury fund in
atriot 00 llanoe vlth Iaction (b), Artlols 999, Vernon’s
bAOt8tad 98 itil dtatutar,
ue enoloqe 8 oopy of ow Opinion ioz Q-3670.
Tours vsry truly
J=mxlxl JUN 2, 1963
uTGttmEY GiElim M TExA8