Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN /” Eon. mti4 Cola, Pf3ge2 duly returned and filed, and whIah aasos were pendu on the docket of said court, end WOTIC and duties praatlaally aonpleted by the clerk In refermoo to suah oases, prior to said pre- oeding presidential eleotlon at whioh pore than 3,000 votea were aast, la suah olerk entitled to reaelve only EQht Evllars as a final dls- position r ee, or shall he be entitled to reoalve 'fenDollars aa such final dlspoaitlon Sea, bear- in& in Mad however such aeses were not finally 4l.spose4of by tho oourt uneIl atter the elea- t1or.l in question.- Artlale 1026, C. C. P. reads as Sollowrr: "In eaoh aounty where there have been aast at the preaeding presIdsntIa1election 3,000 votes or over, the EistWot clerk or orininal dlstriot olerk shall reoelve the Sollming Sees: Eight dollars for each felony ease finally dia- posed oS without trial or dIsmIssed, or tried by Jury whether the defendant be aoqulttsd or oon- viated; elgbt oenta for eaah one hundred no&la ln,eeoh transarlpt on appeal or change of venuel eigh$roentsfor enteriq Judpent ia‘habeaa oor- pus oases, and eight oents Sor eaoh one hundred word8 for preparlna: transorlpt In habeas oorpus COS88. In no event shall the Sees in habeas aorpus oases exoead eight dollare In any one aase. In eaoh oounty where less than 3 000 suoh votea have been 80 cast auoh olerk oh& receive ton dollars for each Seiony ease so disposed of, and ten oents for each one hundred words in suoh transcripts,and one dollar for enter- jud0mnt In eaob habeas oospus. The district clerk OS any oounty shall maelve fifty oents for reuording eaah aooount or the shorili." Art1010 1027, C. C. T. reads as Solltnv8r "In all caoes where a defendant is IndIated for a felony but umlor the ladlotnent he my be oonriatad of a xnlsdermanoror a felony, and the Eon. Eavld Cole, Wge 3 punlshnentwhlah may be aer;essedIs a Sine, jail eentenoe or both suah Sine and imprison- ment in jail, the State shall pay no Sees to any offlaer, exoept where the defendant is Indiotea ror the orreuse 0s murder, until the case has been finally disposed of In the trial oourt. Provided the provisions or this Artlalo shall not be eonstrued as nffeatlng In any way the provisions of Artlole 1019, Code of CrImlnal Proaodure, as mended by . Chepter a5, Gmeral Laws, F%gular Session, Forty-secondLegislature;~rottldedthis shall trtal reee to county not apply to srrtralning Attorneys and/or CrImIaal Distriot Attorneys." pfequote from Texes Yurisprudenae,Vol. 34, page 508, a.3r0iiOw8: "Statutes presorlblng SeeS,Sor pub110 oSSloors are strlotly oonstrued; and henoe a right to fees nap not rest In implication. mere this right is left to construotlon,the language 0s the law nust be construed in razor 0s the govennaent~ mbere a statute Is oapa- ble of two constructions,one of which would give an orrIaer ompennation for his oervlaoa In addition to his salary and the other not, the latter ootistruatlon should be adopted. It Is no ooacesn 0s on offloer that the Legisla- ture nay have been toward other ofSlcer8 mre llhasal than toward bin f.nthe ratter oS oom- pensatlon for servioeeI nor does this faot jus- ti.Sythe oourts In uphold@ Ns alaIm for ocm- peusatlon for servioes as against a fair and reasonable Interpretationof the statutes. In a?plyIng See statutes and asaertainiugthe in- tent.or the Legislature and the nea~n%ngof the sta- tute, the usual methods and rules of Intexpre- tatlon are applicable,* (Also see the oases of '3uCall.a 08. City 0s Roakdale, 246 SW 654; sinr0rd VS. 3ohIuson, 244 SW 8073 v3bstlandCounty WI. Tfazel,288 .SW518; Padden vs; Hardy, 50 SW 9333.) Eon, David Cole, Peig84 Vnder the above quoted statutes,the dlatrfot olerk Is 8ntItlad to no See 8soept where the defendant Is indloted for the offonse oS murder, until the base ha8 been finally dlapoaed oS In the trial court. It fa Immat8rlal as to when the Indlotnentwas returned in the oaae filed. The alerk is not 8Mtled to hia $88 Until therm is a rai diapcwitlon 0s the aaae In the trial court. In view oS the Sorsgolng authorltlus,you are r8apeOtSully advised that It is -the opinion or this department that the dlstriot olerk In Stephens County Is entitled to Sippt ZiGlam for eaah felony aaae on whlah Indiatnsntawere 4uly returned and filed when such cases am finally dlapoaed oS in the trial oourt, regard- leas oS whether the lndlotmehhswere returned and filed befare or after the last preaedlug presIdentleS election. Trusting that the Sorogoing enswera your ln- wry, we re8mn Ycurs very truly AT'i'CRXE??G5?~XALCF~XAS