OFFiCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Eon. D. Riohard Vo&ee
county Attorney
viilsoncounty
Apl-1111, 1940, whemin the
1492 emend8
lpi0dM&3T.8
M emargsncg all or the Bea-
tlcns of the
ion, th5.cdeportmat ruled
that It was ture, in a8mndl.u~BeatloP
1 of Article 0, that 811 or the motion8
Y said elnntldment,
thw making
applicable to Igil8onCounty.
ewink: saidopinion and the ORBB
y%.sdaIndependent Sohool ISstrlat,
agree with you that we tread in
Of Article 952, Vr!rAoA’BPenal Code, 18 BB8-
ke se&Ion of thle 8tntute, rn% upoa which
em wholly dependent. Pihenthe amended Seo-
ts rightful place esnignedto it by ths I.&&e-
nothing in tns hod of the eirendatoryHouse
Bill 432, 46th Legirleturq, to 8how thet other 8eCtiOIl8Of the
Act dependent on this section would not.rrfmS.ndlepandentupon
the emendeta,ry ssation. Drawincffrom the lnngmga ueed in the
Shipley ~~32, super
When a mh section has been intmduoed into
(Plaw, it n.Us'i b;:aonr-truedin vlsr! 0:' tSc origi~~al
statute as it stands attw the amen%uent 16 intro-
ducsd,and it an% hi1 trie&ectlone ol th6 old law
must be regt;r%edaa a h8nIIOniGU8 whole, all eectlons
mutually ectlng upon each other."
Fe have aonoluded that the Leglslcture $6 intention
sea, ae strjtedin the emergency cleuee of Howe Dill 432, 56th
Legislcturs, "to pleC0 i'iilSO2COWIt; in the 681688tetu8 86 the
adjoining countlre." Elavihgreached that cons:usion, th?re is
little signlfioenoe to be attached to the leug~age or the title
tc t;e bill, *To Amen% Section 1" of Article QEFz of the Penal
cods 0r Tsxee, when th.3other ?,ectioneare 80 expresel- relate%
to Section 1 an% being gtrmiarieto the eubjedt of'drtiofe 952,
supra, SDLQScm necefiearyin the maintaining of Wilson County
lo equul atetue wita the a%jOiAiA& oountles.
h reference tc'en ertiole IA 8 oode, 8ucki a8 the Re-
vim% civil statutes, iii sufrioient iA the title 0r an eofi
amendatory thereof to ellow any aman%ment germane to the subject
treeted in the article referred to
that the n88klngor the erticle or i,~';o=~~"~~~t;~~~~~e~~~~h=
attention ol the bgi8latOr8 to all of the proviaiona therein,
a8 ths subject of the amending act, an% theftsueh provisions can
be ascertained by rreding the srtiolss to be emended. CernOUh
et ux. vs. Colorado County, 48 S. P. (2d) 47l$ Fx perte Erak,
128 9. 1. (2d) 776.
&aviq your reque8t ror a reoenaideration
acted upon
of Opinion No. O-2142, we respeotfuliy advlre that in our opin-
iOA ?t iS Correct.
Yours very truly
BY (:.I
vulri.J. It. KiAg
bdsistant