Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Eoaorabla Woodrow Curtir County Attorney Prio county Paareall, Tore8 Dear Sir; Opinion Nor 0-+l20 Roa Wlsr the faota #et forth CM . the ad88i0nerd Court order the local Option slaotlon under the neypetition? Yocr letter 0fOotobar 14, 1941, requartlry aa opin- ion of tM# drpartmsnt on the above stated questlon reads in part as followsr *On August llth 194l in oonpllanorwith a petition bearing the required number or signa- turos, Petitioning the Oommiaeionarr court OS Mo county, tc otier an oleotlon in Yustioo Preolnc~ No. 1 for the prohibit$oa of the oala ot Beer, the Conmisrlonora Court oi Prio County or&red a Local Option SlsOtlon to be bald in eald Justlc9 Prsoinot Ro. 1 of Prlo County on August 50th lOaL, the issue subdttad being the le#Uzing the sale or Beer, on Beptamber lsth 194l, the aala court in oanvaaeing tbr returns- of the aaid elaotion deolared the re8ult to be 2 votes agaimt the aale of Beor, *At a 8peeial Tana oi the Dlrtriot court ot the Blat ;ludiaialDlotrlot, on Ootobar 8th 1941, said eleotioa tra8dealamd to be void, be- oause or forrrOi Sallot, is the Daokee of the D&&riot Court, the Court did not ‘order the proper oftlosr to order another oleotion to be held, ttto’@a prorfded in &tiols 6604Oa Penal Code. “On Ootobar iSth 1941, them was riled and &bsented to the Court an satlrely new petition arrklngfor an elaotlon In the eaid Juetios Prs- .. r 545 Eonorabls Woodrw Curtis, Page 9 'oinotNo. 1 on the issue of prohibiting ths sale oi boar. The Territory being tba sama as that aovsmd br the first petition. *On ihe hearing or the new petition Ootobsr 13th 1941, soms of ths mambers oi the Court took the position that itwarb mandatory on the DlsttrlotCourt to order the proper ofrioers to ardor another eleotlon, eto., as provided in Art. 666408 Penal Oode, and that the Dirtriot Judge should hold a Speolal term or court and oorreot his judgment. Two oi the members ot the Court took the osltion',that 04 an eatirely new petition had oen riled the CommissionersCourt oould dis- Ii regard all that had happened In the past, the ssma ns if no eleotlonhad been held, and order the eleotlon 'underthe new petition.* Artiole 666-4&x, Verqon’s Aanotatsd Penal Code, se- gardlng ths oontest o? looal option eleotlons held pursuant to the rovisiona of the Texas Uquor Control AOt, speolflcelly ~0 tsa04 in part: the DiBtriOt CWTt of the oounty.in nhiohl~~h*&otIon has been hald uhish shall hare original and sx0ll4ito &rls~lotfon of all suits to oontest such eleotion, and the prooeedlngs In such oontest shall be oonduated. in the sase manner, as now govern the oontest . of any 6oaeral eleotioa,andsaid oourt shall have jurlsdiotionto try and determine all mat- ters oonnooted with said eleotion, lnoludlng the petition of suoh eleotion and all prweed- lags and orders relating thsretd, smbraoing final oouat and deolaratlonand publ.ioation.ot the rseult putting looal option into effect, and It shall have authority to determine QUOS- tions relatlnq to the legality and validity of said eleotion, and to detemine whether by the aotlon or want of aotlon on the past of the otlioera to Mmm was entrusted the oontrol ot such eleotlon, suoh a number ot legal voters were denied the privilege of voting, as had they been allowed to vote, might have materially chanced the result, and If it shall appear from . tha evidence that suoh irregularitiesexlsted i in brlnhing about said eleo~lon or In holding stxae,as to render the true result of the eleO- tion impossible to be arrived at, or very debt- flonorablo~ZoodrowCurtls, Pa&e‘5 ful Of a4certalning,,theoourt shall cdjudgo SUCK oleotion to be Told, and shall order the prayer offleer to order another eleotfon to be held, anQ shall cause a oertifled oopy of ouch judgment and order cf the oourt to bo de- livered to suoh orfioer ugoton whau 14 devolved by law the Uuty of ordering suoh oleotlon. . . .0 We think-thetths above raentioncd ~rsrlsion of Arti- 014 6664Oa, supr4, 14 manbtory atnl thst the oourt nhioh ad- Juae;eaeuoh election to be void 14 required to order the prop= offioer to order another eleotlon be be held, and shall cause a aertifiad copy of such jud~ent end order of tho court fo’be dellyemd to ouoh offioor upon whom 14 devolved by law the duty of ordering such election. . . A soot dlffioult question preeontedby poor 1nqsirp.e ..L:L is, whothor or not the dietriot oourt has the 10,;alauthmlty I, and $ower to amend or oorreot his ronaer j-ant which omit-‘ ted the order oi the :roper officer to order another eleotion / to be held 44 provided by Article 666-4oa, eupra. 'lieuote from the case of Flanne 106 9. 3. (2d'f897 (writ of error dismissed While it is the law,that the trial oourt may not, after the tera at wbioh the ludgment 7344 fendared, oorreot what is termed a judlalal error, *The power of a owrt to oorreot lnadver- tent juQneat entries or irregularltle4.*+f* 14 derived from the oonstltutloawhich creates the oourt,' and zre not dependent upon legielatire.authority. 25 Tar. J.ur.p. 530, par* 136r : .. **Althou* juriodiotionover the subjeot matter and the parties 14~6eaera~y exhausted aftor final judgnent, yet, in a..proper4484 the oourt may coke othar orders aodinooneietea~ with the ~djudlcetion~ Thus neoe44lty for proteatfis gersoca or property in the oontrol of the oourt may arise arter ju6 enthss;beenpronounod, and the erarcise of jurFadlotion over suoh persons or property my be entir nslst~tniththe lntegrlty or the final j t sod therefore not affeoted by the rule forbids a ohan In the judgment after 0x7 on of the t&r& certainly a oourt has inhereat authority at any Honorable WoOdrOW Curtis, Pago 4 time to dlreot suoh prooess or make suoh ordare as may be neosssary to eeirf its @l@mmt into ereoutl0n.t 2S To% Jur. pa S31, para lS7. *Astor stating that the oourt aftor the tin3 14 olo4ed has no power to rerl4e or modify a judgment on the oierlts,the t3upmme Court as , early a8 Cbaabers I. Eodges, S Tex. 517 529, *This 1imItationupon the authority of the 0”“s: will not pmvent the oorrootlon of olerl- oal e&ore or teistakes, or defeota of Sona, or the addlflon of such olause as say be neoessary to oarry out the judgment of the oourt.t “In Trasmell T* Trammall, 25 Tax. Suppm 261, the Supreme Court says: ‘The oourt say, a$ter the term, amend its raoords and jud@nentr 80 far as to oorreot msmly olorloal errors or ml4t4k4s or by adding suoh omitted olause in the rend&ion o? the Judgment as may be neoessary to giveIt etfeot, when th.ere 14 anything In the judgxent by whIoh to tunand.t . this judment 14 on Its faoe indefinite, unoertain, and ambiguous. Wee, also, Coleman Y* Zapp, 105 TaxI a 691, 161 s. II.1040~ Gerlaoh Meraantlle Co. Yb Eu&os- Fiorth-Au&arson Co. (Tar. Cl+. App.$ 189 21 X. s . . - *‘A judment say properly be wdeadod 40 as to relieYe It of.ambIguIty~ etlnoorreotand erronsous reoltals may be oorreoted, omitted reoltals SupplIod, and iffpropsr reoitals stricken out, by tmendment.t S4 00 J. pm 236. *sea, also, Freeman on JuQments, ~01. 1, p, 274, per, 142; Blaok on JudgPents, ~01. 1, p. 178, par. 157.” ?or the putpoass of thie opinion, we L!Wt a44uw that the distrlot oourt intended and did ?eriors th0 duty Wxmed upon him by the above mentioned attatuts, and that the &Wnent and order aotually rendemd by the oourt 0omp1Ied with the provisions of the said Artlole 6664Oa, although the JudGnent Ronorable Woodrow Curtis, Page 5 a.56order a8 aatually writton did not contain such provision. If *hia be true; it 10 our opinion thct the dlstrlat oourt le authorized to oorrrot the Mgment aa aotually writtsn to the eirtsntthat It uill oonionn with the judgnantand order cotual- ly rendered. IX thfa be dono, the Comaf:sionerci*Court must order t&o sleotlon IB oanplfuuo~ with the order OS the aourt, (Soo the oaae OS fhith v. Blunt, lS7 9. W. (Sd) SM.) Rowaver, On the other hand, ii the oourt had no intention cind tha judg- rMnt and order or tha oourt did not ooxply With the _oro?lsloua ct Artiola 665~4Cu, mpra, the jud@nent of the oourt cannot now be oorreoted to aonfoornwith *Aa provisions of said statute. Apparently there was no agpsal from the Jude;lsntot the Ulstriot oourt dn¶ths tom OS the oourt at tiioh auoh Jurlg- ment mw rendered .harrteminated. Ii the jUdtp45t and order of the court oaunot be ainaudeaor oorraotsd WJ above mentioned and the Judaent or the mxrt holdiq the 414OtiO5 void IS final, It ia our opinion thst the Comiseioners~ Court oan legally order an el~otlon In conplfallorwith the new ,oetition prssented to the Court. mting that the for413oia;: fully auswerilyour in- wiry, w4 ar4 fOUr4j4ry truly Ardell Xlll.lau~e A(Lseletarrt Am00