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