OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Mr. Tom Whoat
00~emor'a orrio
Aurtln, Texas
Dmu Sir:
wo are in reoelpt
reward, toasther with your letter as
you regarding payment of the -ward.
Artiole 1007 or the
prorid.
“‘ra8 -u Y
ortar to be p
00vuEor w. Loo O'Dmni.1,
a or $250.oo vor th0
aafd fu&tire within ona year from
ter,two por80na, Ruddy Asker and T. R.
Powlor, Jr., aought a8 the au0 la murbermra or Robortaon,
worml
pprehoa&U an4 blivoro4 & to the hand8 or the Sheriff
or Lwr ammt~ lkxu. The it appear8 that Shim do-
llru~ ~88 mot hnrido the 1Y 1 dooror Luur a01111tp,wo
Mr. Tom whoot, Pogo 2
think tho oIroum6Sanoor pamludod a 1lt;ral eamplIu~o with
0ondi01on 0r tho offor, It lp p o o r that
o dolIror~ or tho two
ru&tIroo was 8otually m6d6 to th6 sh0rirr 0r Lamarcountp-
but that, by rosson Of his Ioar that mob rlolo,noo eight OO-
our ii tho fugltlwio wuo returns& to Lamar County, the
Sheriff took the prloonoro to Dallas County ror oorokooplng.
Thor6 was in our opinion, a lubotantlnl oorpllancowith
this condition.
IItdoor not lppou frap tho ill0 that Aokor and
?owlor have boon oonti~tod O? th6 murder of Robutoon. YOU
adrloo that both aro io.tho poaItontIar~. xt d000 not rob
low, noooooaril~,that they wore Ino6rooratod pursuant to
tholr oonrlotion ror the murder or Robortoon. It must ap-
poor with oortalnty that they havo boon oonrlotod of that
rnurdor--6166, as pointed out In our opinion MO. o-3087, the
oonditlon upon which the roward IO payable has not beon mot.
Ass the JOur ooarIrmplar
lnwotigotlom
lur mloth
o a t
th
-fne roroorotIon
ot AOk6r and ?wlor
in tho
ponltoatlur Io pmmmt to a OOnriotIon iOr the 38twdor or
Robortoon, tho quoatlon thonlo prooontod: Has the r6word
beon earnod; ii 80, by whom, and In what amounts to aaoh?
At tho outset, It appoara conolusIvelythat tho
poroono partlolpatlng In tho orrest of Aoker woro not par-
tlolpaato in tho arrest or Powlu, and rioovwom. Qoaoo-
quontly nolthor sot of olaImnt6, alone, 6atIofIod tho ooo-
dltloao at the rowmU, Upon prinoiploo ana6tinood br author-
It188 horoinaftir to bo oltod,, thororore, a oaoo 10 prooontod
for oqultablo apportlonmont or the total snout or the reward
ofrored botwoon thooo partlolpatlng in ths arrest or Aokor
and thoso partloipating in tho arrest of Fowlor. :inoo thoro
18 nothing to suggest any poooIbIllty of dlopulty in tho
value or th6 roopootlro sorvlou (and we can oonoolro or
none) tho oaao appoaro an apt on6 ror the application oi
the prlnolplo WBqualIb7 IO lqultf’. Henor, in our oplnlon,
the rewordrhould bo paid *125&O to the apprehondoro or
Aoksr and $125.00 to tho apprehenders or Fouler.
In 6otormining or rho lo onti8lod to
th@ qaoatlon
the rworb ror arm8t* l8oh tugitiw, onu,ir mora tlun
ono lo lntltlodte o&o In thr mnrd rer ona fu&tIn, how
much should bo wardo& to lmh poroon 00 entltlotl,
8 aoro
difficult problm 1s pra6ntod. Rowovor, no are not without
authority in the reported dooiolons rinnounofnlr, the rules by
which tho problem may be ~solvod.
Y
Nr. Tam Whoat, Pa6a 3
‘.,
&dInarll~ ouoh oftloor8 may not bo paid rewards for oorv-
loos rendered in line of duty, upon grounds or public
polloy. Henoe it f’roquontly beoomeo nsososory to dotor-
mlno, when ouoh ottiooro claim rewards, whothor the aoto
perrornod and oonotltutlng the basis for the claim were
within or without the ooopo or tholr orfIolal duties. Not
60 hors, houotor, for this rwud was orrorbd by the Govor-
no rPm&or otatutorr luthorlt~, and the proolaaatlon aid
not lxoludo poaoo orrlooro notingIn the dIochorgo or their
dUtl fr= the olaoo Of poroono who might earn the rowad
by performing the required omIoo. Under the ootabliohod
exception to the gsnoril rule, thmt an orricer 0t6y rO06i~o
a reword otisred under legiolatlte authority, though ho
porroroko the oorrlooo roquirul In line or duty, unlooo by
the torMo or the oilor ho IO lxoludod rrom thm olau of
ormoM *o uj ouopt it it booaao UnoooaMry In thI*
f notan. 80 dobnIao lddhu u&o ofTIouo Involwd wore
lotIIlg In line a aar. (8.0 QILI:opIaIon No. o-1622 irr
autherltloo than oltod--oopy of whloh lo ottaohod.)
The fOllOwIng authorltloo will be helpful in do-
tormlnlng the quootlono romatning to bo dloouooodr
Whoro robborm wore bolng purouod by putloo work-
Ing Indopondantlp Or l06h 0th~ one who first saw robbers
an0 la attalmptlag to offoot thofr oapturo drove them into
tho hands of othoro, %t boll@ &oar that but ?or his par-
suit they Would U0t h6VO beUI OaptUm ih that p1000 WI
manner, hold lntltlod to ohore In reward ofllorod ior cap-
ture and oonrlotlon of robboro. Cotton T. Downs, (Ark.)
271 S. w. 340.
One who rurnlohed lnrormatlon which lad to the
capture of prloonoro lo lntltlod to an lqultobl~ portion of
tho reword otierod’tor the obptore or the prisonore though
not sating l otlroly in oonoort ;;Ith those who ootuaily oap-
turod the prioonoro. w ouaty t. Xoteo, lt al, 208
Pac. 761.
Whuo the aervloom mquootod In an offor ot ro-
ward us or b ohuao*u md uo mod0 under oIrsuamturooo
that roqulrr or ponit tho oeoporotion ot mmorouo indl-
vidualo ror the looompliohmont or the doolrod rooult, as-
rorol parsons by oonoutod lotlon soy join in ~perronafng
.
lorvlooo rhoreby that r r o ult
lr o b ta ined,and thuo booome
lntltloa to the wuu4, In whloh om tho nnrd lo to k
dltldo& maon thma rooording to the relative veluo ot their
eorrloeo, 34 Cyo. 1750; 23 R.C.L. 1133; IXkhorn Valley
Lodge v. Iludaon, 59 Nob. 672, 81 K. -‘. 859; Jenvrln v. Tom
of E:xo%o~,48 N-H. 83, 2 An. Rep. 185; !%'ergO V. AY4AU, 43
Row. Proo. (N.Y.) 193.
“The evldenom eeteblioheo thut, with the exooption
or Rtoinor, the oleimento to whom the olroult oourt me&o
lwordo aotod in oonorr* in df00tiing the oaptura of Bmrt ma6
own. Tho lo to of eaoh ,oontrlbut.od in BOIUGaprxeoloblo na-
oure in brlnglng about the doolrsd reeult, end the eats oi
rll of thea. toaether produoed that rbaul’c, thereby entitling
eaoh to partialpate in the reward.
“The olaimadt
‘teiner did ;~t sot in concert with
the others who effected the oaptu?w of the fugitimo. He
furnlohod the purowro with the firot luthentlo lnfonrmtlon
they hod obtalaotlooaooralng tho whrrvbouto of the tugl-
tlveo, but ho did not toko up the pursuit. Fteinor pe4rformd
the lnltlol art or oonloo in tha ocrlsa at dots performed
whloh led lnmdlately to the oapturs of Fart and Own. . . .
That lnionaation contributed proximetely to the oepture of
Hart end Owen. ?talnor has e persuasive oleln u:xM~those to
whom ho gate the informationto e portion of the rewerd, whloh
in equity end good oonoolonom ohould he rooognleed.
WIOI-O ore 08808 holtllag that, where the effort8
of aevorrl ol~imantowho bid not sot in oonoorfi oontrlbutod
to produce the desired result, the reward In a proper aaee
will be apportioned equitably monr: them. 23 T;.C.L. 1133;
Bloont1ej.d v. N&lonoy, 176 i:loh. 548, 142 3.“;. 785, Ann. COO.
1915 D662.,end note4 i&u~ v. Bank, ll? ie. 537, 95 X."~. 969,
99 Am. 3. Rep. 1012.
“The iundo ore in oourt one all partlao ere before
tb oourt. Ylthout ldoptlng the dootrine of the authoritleo
laot oltrd for applloetlon in aU eeeee, WChold thot ?trlnrr
is entitled to an lqultsblm portion of the rewarda.
Vha opportlonmnt rarde by the olroult oourt takoo
into oonoldorotlonthe rolativm value of the asrvioeo of the
reopeotlto rlrlmnts, and we think awards to eaoh the oharo
to whloh he is equitably entitled.” m.
i
Afr. Tom Wheat, Pago 5
The prlnolplas upon whloh the above deolslono ara
prrdloated are rooognlzed by the Texan courts. In the oese
;f,TobiA T, MooComb,156 f'3.T.
1 237, the ?an Antonio Court of
n Appoalrnraid:
*It lo mottled, ls ltatod above, that a nuder of
paroono, llthor worklngg togetheror oepar8taly, may rondor
oor~looo OS ouoh a nature, and 80 oomply with the tenno of
the offor, am to entitle them laoh separately or all jointly
to share in the nerd. maA the evidence showa that no one
of tha oloimnto fully met ths raqulrcmsnta of the offar of
reward,but that thafr lffo r tooomblned fully oomplled with
lto terms, though they mm worklna separably and won wlth-
out kaowlod* oi rroh other they may noelra 0 dlvioion of
the romrd la pro)ortlonto their oorvlooo. What oor~looo
WWQ nn4w0d and whet proportl~n or the rouaralmh ohould
roooln are quwtlono for the jury to determine tran the mvl-
danor under lp p r o p r la te
ohargao from the court. (Citing
authorltlao)n.
@A@OtiOAO of faot and matters %noolvlng the exer-
0180 o? $&-At and dloontion oannot be deokdad by thin
Dapa-t . Thooa lr( mrtkro aloh address thamsslvoo ox-
olualvolyto aho 0rii0181 ar dopartmontvo8tod with the *u-
thorlty by lrr to dotetine them-in this inrtanoe, the
Governor. Henoe we oxprsoa no opinion as to the oredlbllity
or wltnesaee taRtiiyiAg by affldavlt in suyport of these
claims, wa do not attempt to resolve conflloto in their
stat0r.snt0, end we do not express nny opinion en to the
relative value of rrarvloes rendered, upon which fl!)nortion-
rr.ent of the rewar6 will be made.
Fran the lr lleno e
auhitted, it appears that th*
apprehenolon of the fu<lve Aokmr ooourred as followa:
On the 11th or Ootokr, 1940, in Can Jaolnto
iyty, TmUo,,foa 8. -a, hwlng 808~ two 111)n
8 mod8 noor him hau who he belfoved to Ee
thorn A&or and Fouler,notltld, thpgh
h% R. A. Wilson, nhorj:ff Eoguo of
c
. . -
Mr. Tom whoat, Pa@ 5
Jaolnto county, rolunt00rin(l to load the 0rri00rs
to tha plaoo whore ho had la o n Aokor and -1.r.
Sharii? Hogua oalloI the Shorti? o? Walker County
?or aaaistanaa. At a point no.ar the hl.ding plaao
a? the ?ugitltaa, the rollowlng men assembloQ:
;he~~;: Jj C. Hogus Jr., and MS deputies Dovle
, T”. Norr~son and 0. c. ~30drurr;
Flofl Firrla, Constable: Preolnot 1, “alker County,
Texas; A. F. Herrington, Cog ‘$geant, yryune “tate
Prison Farm; V’ G. MbConnol Chic? Deputy Shari??,
qalkor Cou&'and Joe R. Villaon. Vllaon wtis sent
ror by Shorl?? Hogua to lead the eearohers to the
plaoa whore he had aeon Aokar nnci Fowlsr; Farrla.
was asked by Hague to jaln them in the nearoh.
By mutual agreeaant, the m+tt;lldivided. Into
two groupt3,one group to work up one ban;: ot the
oreek and the other the opposite bank, toward
the plooe where Wllaon had dlaoorerad the ?ugl-
tiraa. They fluahod Asker cmd rowlor; Powlor
laoapo4~ Aoker uma ~apturok It aaaa 080 PIPS-
kr or tha poou held l gun on Aekor; another
aaareho4 hlsqanother put the handouffs on him;
perhaps et.111 another SoraWly pleoed him under
srroat . The avldonoe as to this phase 1s oon-
fliotlng, but in the view wa take of the matter,
the oonfllot on this point is Waterlal.
m lvidonc# lloarl~ lndloatea that Joa R. Wilson
furn1ah.dlniormtion whloh 1.d dinotlJ to thr oOptun o?
Aokar; that ha llkatiu ‘IISan aotira partlolpant in the
group of men by Whom the aotual apprehension was l??eo ta d.
The evidence likewise olearly reilsota that, by m,utuaZ agree-
cant, expraaa or taolt, ell the man pertlolpating as mombe~s
of the poeaq ware anga 6 in II oonoerted aotlon, in a joint
entgrprlse having for r to purpose the traoking down and ar-
rent or Aoker and Fouler.
This being the oaee, it is lmmaterlal that one o?
the group l??aotad the aotual phyaloai apprshenslon o? Aoknr.
flia aot in that reapeot lo the lot of all the partlee to the
aotlonor joint enterprise, an4 boosnot oonfer
aonoertad
upon him a r-t to tha rouard to the lxoluaion OS the others.
All arm lntltlad to nbara in the reward, and unbar the olrour-
ltanooa dotalloilit would seen that dl??erenoaa, ii anr, l.n
Ur. Tom Yhaat, Pago 7
the ralatlta value of the @en1088 randarad by all aavo
lVllaonera 80 alight as to ba lmatarlal on tha quaatlon
0s apportionment. Wilson, hawmver, not only partlolpated
a8 a member of the poaaa making the hotunl arrest, but ?ur-
nlahed the original ln?ormatlon whioh proxlmatelp led to
the arreet. Yhathar, by virtue o? this fsot, ~':lls~n*a.~erv-
Ices wore of greater relatlve ralua, so that he Should re-
oalie a larger proportion o? the reward, end, l? 80, the
amount br whloh his portion should exoaed th a t lwar4ed to
the others, praront quoatlona of foot whleh the bovarnor,
not thla Dapartmotit, has axolualre authority to daol48.
From the etldanoa before us, it appaara that the
arrest of Fouler ooourrad nubatantlally as followtir
At 2 6.~. Rmlay, Ootober 13th. 1940, Lewranoe
Norakoakl of New Warerly, Walker County, Texan, while halp-
lng barbaoua meat for a ohuroh plonlo, aaw a atrangar lolter-
la6lnthaah8Aowa. The ltrakuer lakad him for a light ad
whllm lxta@iy the r&d ot hla burning ol~tlntte for that
purpoma.Hovako&l noognina4, in the glare 0s the aigntta,
the foe) o? the atraqpr as that of Fowlar 'as it appaarad
in a ra4ant newapapar photogrwh which he had seen. Nova-
kook1 sought the loos1 deputy ahsri?? VJ. Ball, and told him
o?,aealng Fowler. Ball soarohed ana did not rind Fowler;
Norak08kl told him Fowlar had gone down the Mleaourl Paol?lo
traoka toward Wlllia and took Ball in his oar two tiles
down the traok tow& Ulllla wharm Bell got out walked
down tnaka ticmud HOWWave&, mat a nd lmatd Parlor,
rotunto& with him to Naw Wata'rloy,16adod hfm into Norako&l*a
oar, and Norakoakl took them to Huntsville, where Fowler was
ulaoed in oounty jail to await arrivnl or the "herlff or
The foregoing 1s Norakoakl~s rornion, whloh IS sup-
ported by the arrldarlt 0s Toney Gregory.
The roralon 0s 'II. Ball 18 as rollowar
ml1 8aya a of boy8 oame to hfm and told him
there ma a "a\upiQhUO =s 0 rOOteP hoar the ohuroh and that
they lootsawhim go id tha Usmotion of thr @II Ball oak.6
*art0 * ahowhimtha pormenand
tharro?um&; Ball want
a nd a o nr o h o adn4 la ld no t fl84 the p o r a o n~
sa w ma mamo r a
people and they told him thaf saw a poraon walklq on the
!.I*. Tom ':lhoat, Pago 8
railroadtraoki at the roquaat of Bell one of the parties
oarrio fn his oar down road t*p mllea;
hi8 Ball got’out,
la k a tha
d othara to go with him, they refused; Ball walk06
down ral~oa4 traok, arreated FoWlor, brought him to Now
Warerlay; there Wobtalnaa a oar and drlveP and dellvared
Powler to Jell at Huntarllla to await Yherl?? of Lamar
county.
thua lpprua thei thera la no dispute in the
Xt
lrldonaa that Ball alma l??aoted the ph~aloal tklng or
Foulor. Tho only doubt ralaod la as to Warakoakl*a ooanao-
tlon with the tranraotlon. I? Nwakoakl~e ltatawnt la oolc
reot, it lppaara that he reoognlaed Fowlar and oommunleated
hla ln?ormatlon to Bill, a deputy aherlrr, with the intent
to oauaa ?oWler*a arnat; that ha ?urnlshed Bell aaalat~noa
br way of 'further lnfomatlon and otherwlae, but not to the
point of partlolpatlryin the aotual aearoh, with its attead-
ant phyalaal risk. I? Novakookl*a atatomant~be true, it
aaru~o~r~thla~o~U~~~o~~~d9rod-
ntaly uu804 t&a mat br Doll Isd b la wrtitlbd to aharm
in the ramaH ta tha oxtontof tho proportlmmte.valua 0s
the sa r r lo alontighted
a by him toward tha BP rahonslon of
Bowler. Novakoakl*a failure to partlolpatawPth Bsll in
the aotual searoh doon not de?aat his olalm to a part a? the
reward, but la a ofrrumatanoeto be oonsltl@red by the Oover-
nor in detarmlnlng the equitable proportion to whioh he la
entltlab.
On the other hand, while Bell*@ ltatomont la not
rlatly oontndlotory ot Novnkookl*a,it la, though general
in its~ etatamnta, of auoh a nature an to oaat doubt upon
the authentloltyof the atatamantanede by I'iovakoakl. Bell
does not mention Novakoakl, but a rou o? boyn; 88 oomunl-
oatlng to hln, not an ldentitloatlon 9 o 'Poulor, but a mere
suggestion of the preaanoe of a naunploiou~oheraoter" st
the ohuroh; Bell speaks Of waom mora people*--not the boya--
a)~aarlalng him that the tugitlre had Bone down the railroad
tnoka; he does not lven identify Nwakoskl as the driver or
owner of the oar whloh took him downthe traoka, OF hauled
him and the prisoner to Ihultstlllo.
The quartion of Nwakoakl*a partlolpatlon,tha
natura and extant thoroor, la a pure puaatlon 0s fast, rhlah
thla Departnnt oannotsolve. To laalat the Uovemrer la
... - Mm ‘b
.
Mr. Tom %eat, Page9
doterpining it, we rri&t 8wgo8t thet Rell be oalled upon
ror a moxu dotalhd utatmont undbz oat&# aad that both ho
and Novakoaki be a&d to 8uwtl Noh further supporting
eridenoe a8 may be available to them, from other witnoesea.
Pinally,m oall your attention to the fact that
the stetute provides ior the paymeat or the rewed “upon the
oertltioate of the Governor reoiting the taots whioh entitle
auoh parson to reoolre it’. It would aeon, thererore, that
the rindlag Oz the Ootrraor upon the feota, and hla doolsloa
ai to l pportiommnt 0r the reward, ia oonolurlre. Nata v.
Dlnkiar, 77 lflaa.874, 27 30. 832, where, in an aotion againat
the f%ate to reower a reward orferod by the Cmernor, the
oourt aaldr “The offering or rewards end the payment or them
are matter8 lntr u6t.d aolely to the dlaoretlan of the GovemoP
and hla notion “oannot be ooeroad, nor oan the errect or his
reiuaal to lot be evaded by an applloation to the judlolal
departiont or the government*.
We retura pur fllo horedth.
Yours tory tru1j
Al?PROVl?D
?JOP26, 194l ATTORN???m3%RAL 0s TKXAS
(algad) Orover 5:ellora
YI.l?nT MSIWrANT BY (Uuod)
ATTORIEY dlQRAZ R. W. Felrehlld
haaiataat
APPROVED
OPINIQJ