OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF -
AUSTIN
. a-Q.-
--
Iionwublo R. I). Os%lt
County Attorney
W.lbarger Gouatg
Vernon, n?xEl
Rear Slrr
Lois on the fm
g this privl-
PX of the.52 oun ee-
a shorlff of xo:m county In
or axtondad the prlvhlogc
%lox tioa: ‘GlodLdIt be necessary that tho
Conm~Qsioners Court pmt him a leave of abncncc,
that lx the oomm3sionci?s oourt of his couoty?
Ronorablc R. D. Cstglt, page 2
DO Caid COIZI!~LSX~D~~~O C&Pt htiv, tbE Wthority
to want such Xesvc? And LP not, by what au-.
thoritg would he be ent2tled to take this J.ca-+s
upon?
%u;d he be entitled ‘to his roguler salary
during the time he was receiving euc!~ tra4-@.Sng?’
No quota from 11 Texas JurPeprud.encc, pageo 553-
4-5, as follows I
“Counties, beIn coLQonen:nt, parts OS the
@t8ta, havo no poue?? or duties except thoso vhich
are .clearZLy set fOrth and defined ii1 the C0113*5.-
tution and statutes. ‘in0 statute3 havo~clearly .
defined t’ne Dolb’ere, prcscrIbed ths duties, and
imDosed the liabilities of the cor;nissionars’
oouxts, the medium throu$c which the different
oountios act, and from theeo statutes must coma
all the euthority vested lu the counties. “ . .
“Ca~03i0n~Or3~ courts are courts of U&t-
ed jurisdilotion, in that their authority extends
only to matters pertainln;: ~to the general vel-
fnrc of their rcspect%ye counties end that said
porrms exe only those expressly or impliedly
conferred upon them by la&, that ia, by the
Const;Ltution and .atatutea of the state.”
.
lie, hnve b&u urinbls to Pind any statute requiring
the sheriff to get permIssion from the co~%ssioners~ court.
In OPW? to go outside his county or outoide or” Texa,s.
In. Opinion. No. O-2333 110hold that the bohxL33ion-
orx~ court of Lsm&rCounty, Texas, had ‘no authority to grant
a Leave of absence to the county attorney to enter the U.S.
Army. m~ls opiaion also ccf’orrcd to opinion HO. o-3M8 of
this department r?h.?.chheld that the commIs:!loners~ court
could not deitlaro a vacancy in the office of county attorney
ca tho aut!lority to doc2are a vacancy.~~ould be ti the Ma-
trict Cowt, citing Iistilton v., fling, 206 S. W. 953, and
that the county attorney was entitled to hfs enlary during
the tom of his oEfioo or. until a vacmcy vas estnblisiled~
Ve enclose hercvith a copy of Opinion Xo. 0-253j for your
inrormation, ‘., :
*
,
~onorab2e R, D. OsvaX., pag? 3
xi; ia our opinion that, under the fRGt9 at&cd, the ‘_
aOrZ~iSsi01~?J?8’ co-mt has no authority to gmnt a loave ‘or
obscixe to the ahcriff for the pwpo& s;t,atcd or any other
pw?po8es. Rowever, tf the ahmiff desires tdgo he my GO
on hi.0 own volition a5 he needs no pcrlalaJioli frorj the cm-
‘ini~eloncrs~ court. As long as he Ls cheriff he w%U be cn-
tLt;lcd to PeGc2iVe 113.5 8Utary. Of C0?2?250, .hoWeV~r, the, GOZl-
mlesionem~ oourt vould not be autho,nleod to oxpmd county
fund8 for the pnywnt of the shm!.Cf~s oxpenaas Zn or goins
to and frm the rrchool in k?ashin~Zoq as seem uou2d not bs
on county ~busfnaa~ but purely 0;1 the ohcriff*s o?m p&vale
busincsa;
’.
,’
UJP:db
Enclo.oquPe