OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
,noy rardthe Oouety Attorneywmkwl togbthu
the OUOS, aad p~obrbly ho wouldn't ha aM.tl.4
to thir he.
Xononblo A. A. Illller,m 2
"Flea%e lot m% hW0 y0us eplulon cm th&E
rtter a% to *other I ea entitled to a fee
tmder the irot8 %-ted to you."
We refer to Artiolr25, 26, 1.021and 1025, Vemm'r
¬ated Code of Crimiml ?rOoedwe, without quoting the W,
wh$ohhavebeen oaa%truedbytheCoortin the oaae ofVoge8 vu.
Sheppard, 67 8. U. ,(2d)856. We quote iMm the above uatiap-
ld C%KW a% follow%r
"St is at caoe rppamnt that a purpwe of
artiole lop5 vu to mpend to tha o811 of ut-
lole 26 for oaalpennt1aoto thb omuty attomby
r’0r thb aerviae8 pruerlbed by thb latter,stat-
ute u 8 rubjeot fcm em&mnntlaa. Wtwe 28
little doubt that in na8lng that offioea, along
vlth the dbtriot otttaruy, ea a bbmilolmy of
the teea preeoolbed In otlole 1~25, the Leglr-
lature had in -te oaa-latbmthepro-
vislon8 otthe 0therartSele ngudiagtho oom-
pbnsatiar of the oouuty bttomey in felmg trlale,
and rhiob, in exprur tbna, 1-t euoh ompener-
t&m to 'fees allaved by law to dletrzot attorr-
neyta.' Itla thue eeatbtthe,rlghtofthem-
later to fees In aw~ea ol tolay oouviotlQ8, ae
presoribed ln utiole lC25, depeude on whether
suoh fees saw allowed to the dlstrlot attorney
of the dlstriot rhioh embmoes Wllsm oounty.
That said di%triot attorney ia not allowed %ald
r008 A% plfslulpdiscloeed by the prov1s1aae of
Artlole lC21# for the laet-nmned wtlcle providu,
in aub8tanae. that a dletrlot sttbnrey, in a dir-
trlot oompoeed of two or mom oouutlu, oh11 re-
oelve a per diem oompakutiah, depsading upaa h%cl
lttemlmoe upon the %eecrianof the oeurt in the
neoea%sry perfonnenos OS hi6 offiol,al duty. This
canapemotiondoe% not depad ~1 the number OS
owea tried, or the result achieved, and exolude%
all other ccmpensatianexcept hla w-1 salSPy.
"In regard to compbnsatlfm far the omtg
attorneg in habbae oorpus oaae%, the sltuatldn la
materially the %ame as the other. Exoept artlole
1025, there 1% no statute vhioh provtdes oompema-
tlon for that offiaep In a habeas aorpm oh80 Zn-
Ionaruble A. A. Xiller, Page 3
volting a felmg, and, u ve bsve neea, the
8tatute memtiamd relator eroltmlvelyto aor-
does for vhloh the dlrk?i6t Mtomey, if he,
In8tesd o? the county rttormay, performed them,
would be entItled to reorlre the fees there
provided.
~e~o~~dthotthevrltofmaadsn~
be ?3ru80d."
In v3.w of the above mentioned ate,tute, it le olur
that the Leglislaturehas nrde Lt the duty, and It i8 llkmlre
the right, of the 8ounty attorney to Mprestmt the 8tate In Ike
dbtrm caurt in the absaaoe 0r the itistrict attwa~. ma
P; t or the oolmty attorney in ewh in8taace to aoapamatfca
UDI P Articles
fiti 26 aud 1025, 8upr@, depends on vhethea the fee8
are lllored to the diatriot attorney of the distrlot for the
aervioea performed, Sn the abSauoe of the BUetrict ltto a ne y ,
br the county attorney. 8Inoe Jmuary 1, 193636,the &atr%ot
attomaey8 f~ all judlold dirtrfotir 3a thin &at0 hve ka
OO!XpSn8Bt3& by the prpmant of &II8nnual Salary In twslve eqtml
mantbly insfalments,rathar thm by the allovanoa of fear.
(Article 38&r, Vemon~s Annotated Civil Statutes) The em-
pensaticm a? the various dlmttlat attorneys doer not depaa
cntthe nunbar of aasea trlsd, OP the results achieved, aad ox-
oludw all other oompens8tian exoept his &znUrl~eal.uy. b&me
diotwat attorneys are no laqgsr awsatab PILa fee ba818,
but by the payment a? an mmual ealary, and the Leglslatamebu
mde no gravlalrm far oompanaating the aouuty attonkey who aots
$n t&e abaenae a? the distrlcrtattorney by appropriatlmgto him
a pnrt o? th0 salary to be paid to the di8trict attorney, St
follows that the oounty 8ttOLtllegU'hO acta in the ab8encM of the
&rtpiot attomey ts not entitled to 0Ompeneatlca HOP the 8ewloo8
thus rendered. Thersiore, the above stated qusatlm is re8pe0C-
f'ullyzawmwed in the ne@Sve.
Truat~that the ?0~@alg ?ullrmwlteve yma? inquiry,
we are
YOux% very truly
AT- -L QP TXM
ATTORNEY GENERAL Or'TEXAS