OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorrblo Enmer 9arrfto8, Jr., Dlmctor
~De~/tm& of ?ubllo &tatty
hatin, xex80
D0ar air:
i?ehare yeur lett lfhlebreaaa 8rnfol-
1WOS
f R. L. Pendergawo, rhiah pa rttscrhsdta
your letter, a gold oolond roplfm of a bml+e with
the real.of the State of Texas tbeawo~ 8214the woS?8 8)atety
Patrol."
ICemomblm Xomor @mrlron, Jr., ?~&a 2
of R. L. Perdo~ars, whiah m eaalosed in tous letter, does
not in and of lt8elf oon8titute e vialntlon or law.
If however, by the ueo of thin c&rd, the emblem on
hi8 automobile, or any other device, HP. Pendergnes 8hould
falsely personate hl88elf to be an offleer of the State and
should undertake to sot as euah, he would be vlol8ting AP-
tiole 429, Penel Code of Texas, 1925, which reaani
"who0V.C fa18ely L88um88 or plutOEd
to be r'Jlldicrlal or Ixeoutlve Olfieer of
thi8 Sate OP JU8tiOe Of the ?UW, SbOPiff
or deputy, aonrteblo or 8ny other Judleiti
or minl8terial offloer of any oount7 or a
88&O -8P in thi@ Stat. and t&CO8 UpOn
hiR8df t0 aat a8 8Uah 8b8n h $rifitr Qf
8 d8d- r ud 8h11 be oanflned la
jell not exoeeding 8ix mthl or bo fined
sot noeediog tive Eundred (#!500.00)Del-
hP8 OP w both 8tlah fin. &nd ~P1Mm8nt.”
II% th elV.d L prO8OC3UtiOXh should b. b8titut.4 w&d.r
the above 8tat8te. it WOUld be ruae88n~7 to charge and prove
that the defeadeat fa18e1y prete&ded to be md roted a8 a P-
iNb P OffiOiB P ,
N& l l8 & &p\lw 8hOPiff OX St&$* -8X.
3zszabytbe cNPt of CPimilaa1~ea18 inwalker v. st#z?
89 Tax. Cr. 1. 180, 18lr 229 8. li. 3, 854:
"%he 8tat0'8 plerdiag mart eet out the
prOtan ehWfpd vlth NffiCiuZt parties-
laxity to enable the aocueed to know there-
from vhat of?168 he t8 charged vith a88igilrg.
%hi8 Wall don8 in the instalit 0888, but Wa8
the alleptlon folloved by proor wblob Pe%t
8 $d8;t 5zt0 V. 8t&te, 47 %X. &t'. R. 49,
8! . We do not thlnlten allegation
that'ok falrely pretended to b8 8 doput
eherifP, OF conetable, or 9olleerm, i8 met
by proof that he said be wee an oifloer.
Thle will not do. There IPe offlcerr or
OhUPahe8, COr9oPetiOIU. 1odg6,8, and Other
conae~na berid et8te OffiQOPe, and the
unsupported 8tatement thet appollaat 8aid
he We8 en officer doe8 not met the lagal
requirement that the offenee deeoPibed 1n
the infomtion end tha+ted~s$rlbedby vlt-
pB8eee be identleel. .
Rononble Eovr 6arrl8oa, Jr., hgm 3
Se. al80 Brawn v. St&t*, 75 lb. R. 322, 170 8. U.
714, (Ita v. Stafe, 126 Cr. A. 192, 70 8. W. (24 709t
Raid v. Walie, l228Cr. 8. 261, 80 S. W. i2cl)961.
YOUZ’S V8F7 tnilJ
APP$OVI‘C JJN 10, 1941
hltor R. Eo&
A88i8tUlt