Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

P 686 ‘; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS I AUSTIN ! mxwrablo H. V. pitmsn ; county bdltor tryette county I* Orrngs, Paxas Pub110 end devote a or the& tinu to ties rhlle on duty oun use and baneSit? %eoondt- In 8 oourityuherr oounty OiflOial8 le aompenuted oa uluy basis, oan a County At- torney o h u g e4 oont* p er mlla fo r use o f h lr llto- mobile uhile attondltagJustlac Court ln the rulous morsble Il. V. Pltnan, pqo P J. P. Preolaot* la the oellntyt If so, QUI 1t be r tued 8s oort8 8g8lnrt ths defendant vhsn ooavlo- tloar 18 had Or her vhat fund should it be pbld?' 8eotlon 40, lrtllok XVI of the ut4t* coLut1tut1on, i provlQ* I5 putt "lo person -11 hold or lxoroleo, lt the lm tlJB8, nor. than OM olvll 0fSlor of oalolu- aent, exorpt that of jurtloe of the peaoe, oouaty 00mmi88lcaer, notuy uVU0 urd postmaster, . . . unlay ot?mrvlu lpeo% +lly provided herrin. . . . Vlth rderenor to the foregoing oonstltution81 vlrlon the 8U eme Court Of ‘LtXAs in th 08se Of Oeal V* G&p- son, et 81.. r 4 8. V. 365, uldr .'. . . Doer this mesa that *IIlnounlbeat obn hold either o? the oSilo*r nsmed, U lt t& 88ae my OthU OfflOO, OF the b 0~ 0dyhOid tV0 OfilO~8 T&M both ~8 8IBOIig thO8e 8peOiiiOdq 1I de*lgnstedT Vo think the former is the proper oozutruotlon. u0ti0ttn6 0rZJ%0?f~& 2i%%ZoF~ l845, ofl861,8ad of1866,uhfoh la the ram. in lroh of thorn lnstrImmt8, @ad roads 88 follow8: . . . It is alem the under thl8 rrot1on @I&y ustloo OS the puse ml&at hold m0-r offlo*. H ovoll v* Vllaoo, 26 tu. 59. TLu offloe of jus- tloe Of the peroe V8IImode sn 8xo*ptlon to the gweralrtio, an4tho lnforsnoe truathe us0 of the r*rw ung l la the pms*nt Constitution rptLthe abro 3i tioorof other offiorr, 18 strong thAt itV8s notw8Jit in8nyMnMr toOhUge the genubl rule, but rtsrolyto sate addltloaalu- Thb other ooprtruotlonwould ntsrlally 3ii$L gener81 dr00t of tb 0v1*10& It - Would ~OVbnt *Van 8 jUSti Of tG pabee from holding my other offloe l x o vpoam t of those rpe- olllly named, 8ad vould be 8 r8dioti dopsrtwe frOa thb prOrislOM OS 8I.lrprbvloua OOiWltUtlOM 01th 1e *Am8lubjeot. coIut1tutloll,l&g, Art1010 3, 8eotion 30. Ir the l ti tlu provl*lon I in qw*tlon had been 0 *e or jurtim of ,- i“ , ganorsblr B. V. Pltmn, p-e f thme my hwe beon a o rdoubt o th 8 pot F’ z lte*4 8onrtruotlanJ but the romls 8re e x o ep t bnd they lndlobto thbt it V&S intended that'. &on al&&t lwtully hold my otfloe, and in 8dditlm th e r eto lltbr oi the oSSlae* enuwrst- ful4 hold too offloes 8t th* s8m tlxis,when both uuo ofrlo*r speoliloally n8wd ia the seotlon. If ths tilrgatloas of the petition u-0 true, v* 8re olrrrrlyof ths oplnlon th8t the &ppel&nt did not vsoate his ofrlos of oounty oomisrloner by aooepting thst oi asyor. 8uoh vo understandto hue born the ruling OS the oowt bolos. But, be- 08uso ths 8ppe~sAt did notmke all the SKmberb oi the ocdmni88ioner8~ oourt party to the suit, the jud&WAt lb 8f~1nabd~’ ,; tii deputwit hbkivrltton numerous oplnlo~r hold- lag that orrt~ln oountp offloialr a?e not prohibited br 18~ fron holding the offloe Oi notary publle uhilo holding theta r** otlve 0fri0*8. ~OIIOY~ QA the other hsnd, this deput- menr has nltkn oplnlon8 hoidiry that OertUn aounty offlo* w* laooa tlbk with tha 0rri00 of notary publla ad that a psrron ho G if@ sash ofrloo oannot at the bus the hold the office ai notuy publlo. Ta r lxaaplo, it 1s held that the OS- ii08 of oouaty olerk ml/or deput oounty olerk ~8 lna ble rlth ths offloe of notmy pubL o uid thAt 8 person ho tha ofrloe of oount 81-k 8~&or daputy oount olerk oamot 8t the e&w tlae hoId the offloe of notary pubL 08 This do- tment has held that the otflae of notrry pubUo and oounty #?rsuurer &re aot lnoomp&tlbk aad thst the oounty trururer 18 not prohlblted by 1811trae holding tha offloe of notary pad10 *hik h0idLng th0 0frl08 *r o0my trubw0r. I~W thr purp0ser oi this Opinion we do not dmn it nroe88bry to enumer- ate or mention all the.opinions rsgudlng your first auestlon. In Vie0 0r the foregoing ruthorltlesyou uo rerpeot- Sully wlvlsedthet it.18 the oplnlan of thlr departnmkttbat the offloes of oouaty lxUtor r**l*t~t oounty auditor, ooun- ty treuwr and 40 uty sheriff ue not inooap8tlb,‘~t’$~~h.a ottloe of notary pu tUo and th a tl person ho1 oiiloer @an at the lme tlms leg* 2 y hold the All of the *boor mentioned orflolala Who 8~ duly ~uallfled ~otarler publie ary kpll ohapge tba tees provided by law tor their rervloes as such vL n 8otlng in the 08pbOity o f l no ta r y publid. 689 Iionorable RI. V. Pitaan, page 4 The oounty o??lofalr of Fayette County are ooqpen- r*ted on an SAAwl uluy b8818. Vlth ~SfUWlOe t0 fOW *eOond MStiOA JOW OttOA- Lion 18 dir-ted to our Opinion No. 0-S 40, holding 'that the oamlr~loners~ oourt of lkulthCounty vould have luthorlty to feq footh rrle ctyou tha oounty attorney rraronablo neaossmy trweling ox- ttendly justi oowtr 0r the oounty 01~3 that ho aethod o.? oompenut on of ruoh expenwr bllowed, ii any, would bo for ths ~aPrtrrlonerr’ court to determlno irr their eound dlroretlon. The rtrtutes ar* lll*nt ** to the rste plr mile to be alloved the aounty rttornsy. Howover, in vlu of our Opin- ion lo. O-3670 8nd Artlolo 38899, Seotlon (b), YerAM’ kmotat- ud Cl~ll 8tatut*r, it is our 0 inloa that the oommlr8loners~ ciourt OS F8y*tt* County bar 8u?horlty to allow the oounty lt- torney rearonable and ae1oers8ry traveling upwmer for attend- ing jurtloe oourts 0r tbr oouty. The saount, and the aethod Of OOiU&Nlt~tiOA or ruoh e M ISllloud, I? sny, would be ?or the oamalssloners~oourtY o drtemlne in their round dlrorrtlon. Ilk olxpe~8e8 h o¬ la lly be taxed against ths dafuubat. E?r uo h lxpe~~8 are al T owed by the oomnluloners~ oowt, ruoh a:xpe~ur must be peld out of the offloars’ r*Ury fund in atriot 00 llanoe vlth Iaction (b), Artlols 999, Vernon’s bAOt8tad 98 itil dtatutar, ue enoloqe 8 oopy of ow Opinion ioz Q-3670. Tours vsry truly J=mxlxl JUN 2, 1963 uTGttmEY GiElim M TExA8