Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 4 AUSTIN Q Honornble A. A. Uller Oount9 Attolwaly mfton county 1 ~~rtoll, Texas m8r Sir: You have co this department a8 to whether the follow h the term of Arti- de 666-38 of tern when 8ueh order Js andor attaak in a Illlttox, county on this tha 5th ee (3) Oopl.8 at urt on Juw 5th ertlfying the re- h8ud and se81 of offioe at h de9 of Juna, A. 0. 1939. /I/ Ceu8ey nettox County Judge Hewtan Co. Texas’ i It iii to be noted thnt Article 666-38 OS Vernon’8 Penn1 Code requires that the order of the 0ammissi0aer8~ aourt deolering the rerult of a looal option eleotlon and prohlbit- lng the 8ale of liquor 8hall be pasted at three publia plamr within the county or the polltioal lubdlvl8lon where the elea- tlon was held. Th18 8tatute further p-"ovidss that an entry by 230 Honor8bl* A. ‘A. Juller, page 2 the oounty fu&ge on the minut*m of the 06mio~onero~ 06urt rhOPinS tbio pO8ting ehall be prLv SaOie OildM60 theroeS. Without oomidearlng other defeate wh.luh thi8 order tight hRVe, It la our opinion that it doer not cam@9 with Artiole 666-38 bWMU8e it doeu not ahov thet the three poetinge ~vere m&do in public placrea as required by the statute. For all that ,8pP8ars from the Order t&0 pO8tbgO m&&t brve b0WI W& iSi the orrioe or th. oounty j 0 o r In lo m8 o th e r p la o eno t p ub - : UC. tie uvo r0tlnd 820 aa % reotly in pent on thll quo0t1on but in the 0~. of ladulg v. 8tate,~51 8. U. 390, uloing ~UJldN' OUI' ~OViOU8 10081 OptiOn bV vbi0h h8d 0 8t~tUte,Wlb- ‘.,otontiolly the 88mo a0 th8t uador eenolderation, the oourt ,, ~oald: *we hold that the OP.d4$r-0s the ~oount9 J ,. “~,. iust 8hov the ohmaoter of publgeatlon, how p liehed, and the requir-ed length of tige; end thrit i, ‘the order ,hre ‘introdwed vu not in ocmplianoe V$th the 8tdUte, &&d did net donnt%tUte ~a pr-, fd@U. aaoe oontomplated .by the ltatute; rwi that the oouvt in th elbeenoi 0s~ ury’ other proof 043 the. 8Ubje?ct lhould have given the roqueeted OhA+.* OIolfqver, it loomo that undar the daol810n8, even the ~: ,+ronoa of the ardor lbeut vhloh. you inqulro, uould not be fatal to o,pooooutlon provided thk okotleu undur vhioh lt uoo brought woo volld in other roopeoto. The offoot of the ,~ abrenee of the oounty judge80 order oertiS9ing lo. to the potit- h& or of it8 ineufflcloney, lilrply deprive8 you ~of It0 uee ,,a8 ,priprp faols evidoneo of the portimig and its d-8 not pr.0hi-h you,from offering other oompetent teotlmony that the pootlng Ifa8 actuelly aarrled out a8 required by law. he IB~rell 00 I atate, 16 8, W. 7881 Jonoo v. ,btate, 43 8. U.~ 981 aad Armmtroni ,. vb State, 47 8. If. 981. Furthepaoro, it oeeao uo i 1 lotobllohod ‘~‘Chat thsre is no objeotlon to a ‘propIp entry of the order in .l~:>z:y”.qg;tion by the county judge Ada ‘long lboequent to the ele& \~ . It ha8 been held in one inetmae that it va8 not im- proper Sor the judge to make tho entry oorreatly ~0~1 tha do9 preaedlug a oriminr3. trio1 booed on the eloetion. It vao held proper al80 for the ontry’%a be nede b 8 lua@eedlng oouuty j’udge on a proper ohowing that the pub 3 Ication va8 aotuolly ,pUde by him pmh%88OOr. 8ao Barham v. 8tate, 53 8. V. 109 ~pndCmey v. State, 59 8. V. 884. Honorble A. A. Uller, pqe 3 We truot that thi8 ruffloiently onooeao your i.quir9 and that you will find it poroible to lu8toln your Orlo&Ml pro8ecutlon. Very truly your0 *TTcm80!f ffxamRALOF TIUM lU:db