‘8’XXEA%‘X”FOWNEY GXCNERAL
OF TEXAS
AIJH'I-IN
II.TIGSUI l
PRICE DANIEL
.ATT”RNl!YOENERAI.
August 9, 1951
Hon. James R. Strong Opinion No. V-1232
County Attorney
Panola County Rer Several. questions re-
Carthage, Texas apecting contra&e for
meals for prisoners in
D8ar Sir: tl.0 county jail.
You have m@iested an opinion on the foliowing
questlonsr
“1, May a county having between 19,000
and 20,303 population pay the sheriff 4.75 a
day per prisoner and $2.50 a day for a Suara
or matron?
Where a county pays $.75 per prle-
“2 ,
oner per dog to a man who feeds the pri8oner8,
tnag lt hire the mein’s wife as a euara or matron
at the rate of $2.50 a day?
“3. May the sheriff make a contract for
some person to furnish aooked meals to all the
priaonsre for the pribe of $ .75 per head per
day rscardless of and without refergnce to the
number oi’ meals actually fynlahea?
The sheriff of Pano1.a County is cC4Upeneated on
a salary hasls. (Tex. Const., Art. XVI, Sec. 61.) Thare-
fore, your request is answered in part by Attorney Oener-
al’s Opinion V-359 (1.947)) wherein it is stateac
“Article 6871, V.C.S., authorizes the
employment of a jail matron. Article 1.041,
V.O.C.P., as amended by H.B. 540, Acts, of
the 50th Leg., p. 1.66, Vernon’s Texas Ses-
sion Law Service, provides for 0 maxlmuni
compensation for each matron necessarily
employed for the safekeeping of prisoners
in counties of 40,000 or less inhabitants
of Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2.50)
Cooper v. Johnson County 21.2
::;f $k State v. Crrnes, 1.06 S.W.f2a)
397 l
Hon. James R. Strong, page 2 (V-1232)
“We quote the following from Attorney
General’s Opinion No. O-1242:
“In anewer to your secona questlon, you
are advised that ever since January 1, 1936,
the effective date of Chapter 465, Acts of
the Second Cnl.l.ed Session of the Forty-fourth
Leglsl.atur$, generally known as the “Offlcere
Salary Act this office has consistently hc1.d
that where i sheriff 1s compensated on a Sal.-
ary basis, the Commlasionera Court 1s unauthor-
‘lzed to pay any fee whatsoever for services
performed and cannot allow him any apeclfled
sum for the boarding of prisoners, but only
for actual. expenses incurred by him in feed-
ing the prisoners in his custody.’
“The above holding was followed in At-
torney General’s Opinion No. O-2379. In view
of the foregoing, your thlrd question is an-
swered in the negative, and you are advised
that where the sheriff is compensated on a
salary basis, the Commlsslonerst Court can
not allow him any specific sum for the board-
ing of prisoners, but only for actual. expenses
incurred by him in feedine the prlsoners in
his custody.
“This office has repeatedly held that the
sheriff has the authority and 1s authorized
by statute to feed and purchase al.]. suppl.les
necessary for the maintenance of prisoners and
that such authority 1s not conferred upon the
Commissioners t Court, either directly or in-
dlrect1.y. Attorney General’s Opinions Ros.
O-329, o-1.228 and O-4377.
“Since lt is the duty of the sheriff to
feed the prisoners, it is our oplnioh that he
le authorized to purchase their meals from a
cafe if he deems that it 1s the best method
to be used in feedlng the prisoners. The
Comlssioners I Court 1s authorized to pay the
sheriff for actual. expenses incurred by him
in feeding the prIsonerR.”
In view of the foregoing, you are adVISea that
the county Is not authorised to pay the sheriff a specific
sum for feeding prisoners, but the sheriff must be pa id
his actual and necessary expenses Incurred in the f’e:diW
of prisoners. The sheriff may empl.oy Guards or matron?
Hon. James R. Strong, page 3 (V-1232)
for the safe keeping of prisoners In accordance with the
provisions of Article 6871, V.C.S. The compensation of
the guard or matron is roverned by the provisions of Ar-
ticle 1041, V.C.C.P., and the maximum compensation that
may be paid such employee is $2.50 per day.
We know of no statutory provision prohibiting
more than one member of a family from being ‘employed by
the county. Whether the person furnishing the meals to
county prisoners be regarded as an independent contractor
or as an employee under contract with the sheriff would
not prevent the employment of his wife as guard or matron.
In answer to your third question, you are ad-
vised that the sheriff may contract with an Individual to
furnish meals at a flat dally rate per prisoner if he deems
that it is the best method to be used in feeding the prin-
oners .
SUNMARY
The commissioners’ court is not au-
thorized to all.ow the sheriff any specific
sum for the boarding of prisoners, but only
the actual. expenses Incurred by him in feed-
ing the prisoners in his custody, whether by
a contract with an individual. at a flat dally
rate per prisoner, or otherwise. The sheriff
may employ guards or matrons for the safe
keeping of prisoners in accordance with the
provisions of Article 6871, V.C.S., and the
compensation of such guards or matrons Is
governed by the provisions of Article 1.041,
V.C.C.P., which limits the maximum compense-
tion to be paid such employees to $2.50 per
day. Att’y Gen. Op. V-759 (1947).
,The county Is authorized to hire 8s a
matron the wife of the Individual with whom
the sheriff hzs contracted to feed the prls-
oners, there being no statutory provision
prohibiting the employment of more than one
member of a family by the county.
APPROVED: Yours very truly,
Jesse P. Luton, Jr. PRICE DARIEL
Reviewing Assistant Attorney General
Everett Hutchinson
Executive Assistant ,,
./Llr‘, /‘/J&.-g?
Charles D; Mathews
First Assistant John Reeves
JR:w Assistant