Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY QENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN lioaorablr Strpirn F. Eabrrt, paeo 2 or thr ldmlnlstratlra alrtrlet, in @~rnU *urn thr mauler jod#r thuaof Is lbsrnt or 1~ fro8 an7 oausa 4l~ablo4 or 4laquallfla4 rm24pre.aldln(l,and in ln- at~~.~ara wham tha ramlor dlatrict judge lr praaant or hlaar~i trying comae whom luthorlrrd or poxmlttad by thr Conatltutlon or lara of the State. Artlcls 1687, Ro~iaad Civil 8tatuta8, 1925, prrslta tha praotlolaa ~a~rra of the eoart praaant to aloot froa amx@ their auabar a apaelal job(a, rho ahall hold owrt and prooud with tha b~alnras thweof, la lartanorr Barr the jUdea of a 4iatrlot court on thr rirat or rnf futoro dsf or 0 tar8 falla or rafusaa to hold ooort. Artiolr 1893,Ra~lmd Cltll Statutes, 1925, adda “nbaeaoV’ to tie sltuetlona whurln the praotlelng lawyers of the oourt may llaot & lpoola1 judge. Tour question 18 8naruad by thr following qoatatlon from thr aasa of Glorrr ta. Albraoht, 17) s. I. 504, whueln Chid Justloa ALasant atatrdr *Tha Conatltutlon prorldrr th a t l raosno~ in tha oifl~r of judaa ahall be flllad by lppointamt by the Oovarnor, and oalr 8uthorisu thr lp p o lsta of ~t l rpeslal jadgr whea the ramlrr Jo4 0 la *abunt*, *dlamblad*, or Wrqual f - ilrd. ‘ Eo 4 0no tth ink l4 of thr abotr trrms shout4 br eosatru.4 to smbrssr s r~oenr~ owsrd by thr Qutk ot thr mm- J lar jud(s, sad thr Le#lsl8tars hss not lutbDrlae4 tha appointmart o f l 8~~1~1 ja Qr In su o h o su.. You am thudorr rdrl8ed that no prorl8loa has beaa r&a for t&a llootlon ot a spoof~l Ja460 or tbr la ~p r r r t or l ja46r frsn lwthrr 4lstrlot dthln tha abrlnlstntlrr blatriot, follows tha 408th of tha f Hcnorabla Staphan F. Hebart, papa 3 regular judgr, and prior to thr fllllng or the raornoy oocaalonod by the death of tha dlatrlot judge by appolat- arnt naao by the Oorarnor. Your8 vary truly A’l?‘lXRRRY GRR'ERAL OI l'?ZAS B7 Riobar& 1. Iralrohll4 Aaalatant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TZAS