OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY aLNLRAL OF TEXAS
Deer Governorr
'.wll yo> &asr rendu us a boolslonu
to hethr M not the sherlft~aaotions as erl-
doaoeh~bythe afflduvlt in hlr file allow Gorrr-
nor GQmis&.'to pay the ruardthat was author-
ited by tM'enelosed proolamatlon,Ho. 977."
The shmiif's afiidavitaooobipwiylng
hi8 olaim OS
the reward disolo8er the r0u0hg:
wn tba afternoonor A-1 llth, A. D.,
1910, aotlng an inrormationrhishI had re-
solved, I lest Buumont to go to Kouutse,Texas,
in an attempt to looateIr,d arrmstThoma8 J.
EonorableBV,Leo O*DaUel - Page Z
*Red’ Oolenan. I warnaooompanledby J. H.
Allen, E. T. Poole, BomW F'renoh,Sr. all
Deputysheriifrin JoffrrsonCounty,Las.
Sh8a I rraohedKountxe I ukad Yr. MU.@8
Jordan sherlrf or din county to go with
7;;.”
ch e
h o u*her
x i th8
is
ma w
na s
lup p o Be&
It la loaatedabout fire miles aouth-
neet & ths toun of Kountse, andla in tha
ld@ of the @BlgdUhlokot*.Khan we rmohod
not in the houm but wn# later
oonwrlb lboutfittyyarb froprthehours.
I oallod to him to oome out wifb his hands
up but,& anmued us wlth a blast or gun
tire, and WI won foroedto fire for out own
proteotion,whloh resultedin his deatk."
It ir the opinion of this drp-srtment
that Sheriff
under the.raota di8Olmed by his affidavitand
iIlahardaon,
SUQpOXTthgproof, is entltlaato thf3rwmrd offered by y0I.W
Xxoellsncy.
The relative rl@ts at one oLferi.n& a reward and
of cm olaimingit are ordlnarllyde.tzrained by the law of
oontraot, This Is es~oolally true nhere the oftiobr la a
plvate prson. Ths reward oo.?stltutea the orier 0s oon-
tmot and the ~erformanoeof the thiJl& to be rmarded oon-
atltuteathe aooeptanoe. 0rdlnully, the one olaimlngthe
reward offeredby a privatepersonwodd have to Imow of
the offer beZore Ll.8 pertomanoe of service oould m oon-
struedas M aooeptanoeof the offer.
Miere, however,tha reward la by virtue of a
statute,or what is the atunet>Ang in legal effeot 1s
one offeredby the Gcwsmor ~?X~UUL~to lawful authority,
it is not so definitelya oontraot. It does of ?~oursa,
oontainn6ny 0s the elementsof a oxitraot, wltt
respeot to the requirementsof a prwio~ kxmwled~~0s
iut
the orru, the mile and betterreason, we think, m-m not
to require such previousknowledge.
In Broadmx vs. Ledbetter, (Tax.) 99 9. W. llll,
the Supreme Court said:
HonorableY. Loo OWaalol, Pago S
Vhil8 W@ham mm M luah diatlnotlm
oltlsoaaustari8o froma ooatrriot bind-
hia to pay**
This l.an@a$opoarlblyla a diotum,nevertheless
it ban boon puotodand rollw8d by the supron court or
Nevhdo in Smith ‘Ia. State, Ibl Pao. 6%
uorearer, we aaawus the *sot to be that sheriff
3lohudnon did know of the r8waH aad aou&ht to make tho
arrest.beoauae thoraof,
Xhathar tha reward offoradby a private perom
or by %he covernmsnt lt0eir,nevarthelosa bsrareone oan
olakn the reward, he mat havr oo plied ac leaat aubetantlal-
ly with ths terma and oonditlcmaof tha offer. (See 30 Tax.
Jur. p* 967 1 6)
The questionreours there&r0 whether or n&
Shari** Rlohardaanhas oompllad substantially
with tha
offer by the Governor.
T&s offer oantafnod in the proolamation was
*for lnformatlonleadingto the uroot, dOliY8ry and oon-
viotlon0s aald T..J. 'Red' coioni~3to tho sharr or Bar-
din county, Tens, inside door 0s ssAd oounty w
the jail
whore&a,Goldmanwas novu arrested, doUrorod or oonv i ot-
ed; but on tha oolltrary,
was klllsdwhile roslatlngarrest.
whetheror not there W been a nubstantlal oom-
pliano8 with the offor 0s tha rowarE cm the part 0s tho
aharlii,la a amst lntereatlagquo+ion, and on0 that has
never arlaea in tho oourta of this Stats, but 600s lgpeu
to hue been dooided by the supremeCourt or Nevada in
smith vsb State, etapaw It la thsro aaldr
@The taot upon whiah tha looond quastlan
must k deteminod has no pm1101 ia the re-
Xonomblo a. Lao OWenloL - PagO 4
ported oases, and
fo ra r ule
wh lo h
yetwethink
la lpplloablognoodat oxl8ts
o the fasts or
thla oau* The orru ‘or the romrd w *far
the urootand ooavlotl~ or the puooa or por-
mana gdlty 0s the mudor or Hury CIplbron ti
three L’a8oolatoa~~ There was arlthor arrest
nor 00nvlotl0a,for uao roema that the r sons
* ullty 0s the audd wo~o all kiuod w r lb n-
a & tlng The p&roono ocmpoalngthapoaae
arrort.
wue authorizedto make an arrest of the murder-
erae ROT. Laws, I 8964. The taking of the Urea
of the murderers, whllo realoting arrest by roroe
of arm8, was aleo urtliiablb, Rot, IAWS, II
6396, 6397, X6 said In the notes to the oaae of
County,auprar ‘In oonstru-
Xlklne vD .iiiipandotte
ing rewardsofm?ed for arrest and corn--lotion,
the oourtshave been lnoUned tt look dth dia-
tator on a too teohnleal5nterpretatAoz of the
ward “oonviotlon.“’46 L*R.A..(N.3.)664.
*The audor of the note also saysa ‘one
rho offers a r&ward for the p&ertormanoeor a
certainocrvloemay presorlbeany tQrzs he map
wish, but, as erperlenoe h&a ahcm that many
personaue prof’uae In thler promlseamd slow
In aeethg them, and are lnollzedto take advan-
tage of m&r8 teohhloalltleain order to avoid
oarrylng out their end of the agreement,ooiirts
have often,as In Xlklna ve ;iyendotto Gounty,
held that lubat&ntlaLoompliano~with the terms
la auffiolent,espeol&Uy where a literalocm-
pllanoowould be lmposslble.*
‘The 3Upm CO& Of COmOOtiOUt in RO
Xelly, 39 Cohn* 159, held: ‘That the atatuta
ought to reoelrean ec,ultabl&, not a atrlot
or toohniool,oo~~truotlon, and thit, so con-
strued tht:petltlonzrwaa Salrip within Its
provl&na* and e:;tltled
to the reward.
“In hsakell v. Davldmn, 91 Yie,4S, 42
I,.R. A. 155, 64 AJi.St. Rep. 954, 40 rt1.
330, It uaa held: ‘An offer 0s a reward for
&the arrest aad ooxvaotlon&of en offender o&h-
not be taken literally.*
Honorablrii.Loo O'DanIOl- Pa@ 5
-0 O&SO .0r bt0s04 V* sta0, x83 nr.
492 56 3. iv.985, Is anala us to tho on0
at L. It was thoroinho1r I ‘Plaintiff
IS 0situd to a reword 0rrorod by tfu gofer-
nor r0r the rrre8t or a tugitir0 d hi8 d0-
llrory to tho allsr, thowh in w tho
arrost ho mun a06 ths fueltlro10 @at ho
~~o~foro ho oould be dollvorodto tho
&
'3 the oase at bar the arrest and aonr
dd.0n 0r tho parsonsr0r whoa the reward
was offorodwas rondorodi~possIbloby roaaon
or thoIr being kiLlodwhllo rosIstIngarrost.
'Tholrkilling,in the manner dotaIlo4 In tho
hgrood statemoatof raots, was justlrlablo,
and o ratod as a lawfuloxauso for non-
0omplclloe with the Sull cond.ItIonsof tho
rowarb, It Is OUT oanoluslonthat thoro has
been shown a substantial oompilanoowith the
oomlItIonsof the reward,and tho respondants
are entitledto rooovor.~
ireaonour In the reasoningand oonolusionof the
Xeva4a aqmxne Court. It Is our opinion that Lr, Rlohard-
son has oorreotlysunmarlzedthe mttor in his letter of
olaim,a8 r0u0w8:
"IIIVieN Of the fOregOi~ r~iat8 Wo fOei
that we have saved the State of Texas quit0 a sum
of money In oxoess of your roward, and at tho
8aii0time furthered the lnterostor woloty."
xn judlalallanguagewe think the 8horirr has
substant
Wllg oomplledwith tho terms of the Governom*s
groolam&Ion oiteriq the reword,and that he is entitled
to reoelvo the same.
Vary truly yours
ATTOiWEY -L OF TDAS
BY
09-m Assisteat
APPRQV'LD
Jm 11, 1940 AiTROVED
/I/ oorald C* MsDn O?INxOKCWXITTXZ
ATTOlfNET
W!JWbU OF TEXAS By /sj BeW.B.,Chairman