Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Court: Texas Attorney General Reports
Date filed: 1939-07-02
Citations:
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion
   OFFICE     OF THE ATTORNEY       GENERAL       OF TEXAS
                             AUSTIN


                                                 Euy 20, 1939


Hoa. 0. B. Carron
cotmty   Attorn4y
    county
xator
Ode66a,
     Texa6




                                                on tha    above
                                              thllt   orrlae.

                                      part*       r0z.mf6t




                                     a applicant shall da-
                                     ng ree with the aounty
                        l r i?Ltg o r the application.
                        the County Judge attitled toa
                    u   fee for holding the hearing upon

                             ia th4 6UitteTOr Eaib,tWli-

            The next to the last '&wagraph or~i3eetimi6,
yrtle     23,of the TO%66 Liquor Co6tr0~ Aat re6d6 a6 rob
.
                                                      7




                                .
    Hon. 0. 3. 04rron,Bay 80, 1959, Psge,e


           original llawo   of any ala66 here& pra-
           rldad, uoept Bmnoh  Lioon6i6 anU Temporu~
           L1046646 ahall be mtbjeot at the tiBe of
          the heax& thereon to a fee of Fly6 Dollara
          ($6). wbioh ree 6hall, b7 the OoiintyOlerk
          be depoalted in the County Tma6ury and the
          applic8nt shall be ll6ble r0r no other reee
          koept 6ald aprlloatlon m an6 the annual
          u0.M.   fea required Or hi8 br thi6 ht.*
              The oourtm of thl8 #tat* lw+o'huM that pub110
    0rri0f816 6847ahug   ottw 8uah roe6.86 uo 0p0dri0*
    .authorisedby statuto~ ana that the ra4t t&t  the.bgL-
    lature ha6 not author&d   th. fee for his 6OX'dOi that
    ithaajadwadutyti         thopubll6 0fYi43al4006 notauthar-
    I.20Mid 0rri0w to 6hargo l rec. The ooa6titutloa
    rht6 the caapett6atlott   or ugrtafn ofilou6, and authpriaes
    the La~slature to provldo br law ior the oanpututatioaof
    all other orr.ioer6,6em6ats;agenta and ~niblloaontrao-
    tars. Pur6U.d     to the ‘UthOrit~ thU6 Ooais~'~Wd,mmer0~6
    6t‘tUteE h‘Ye been      6646 rbfttgfh0 OamipWtMtiOItOrVU-
    :Oti OhEM      Ot Of&6.       Th4 power rxtthe lagl6latumJ
    to rir the aOqmW‘tiott     Of OffiOU8 i6 lf6Iit.dbf the
    pro~l4ion6 of the oon6titutlott   prohlbitlag the ~666484
    oi bO‘1.r 6mid         bW8iOrbidditlgthtt grrnfing~iUtl'8
    ao6pen6ationror6e-mi0es4lro6~ronder~,          and rixfag
    the w         0~p4666tionor    00rtain 0rr104~6. m.6 P-Z
    may bi d616gated by the X.e@rlature to the goy6rnlng boUle6
    Or QOUIttiO6,anmi4fpri OO~OtVttfOM or uiEtrfat6, aad thI6
    ha6 been &oM in YUiOU6 166t6XAO.6.
               m   hereinbefore statsd,   the oaPp666ation of pub-
    lic   0rri0em I6 rired by the oonstltution El& 8t‘tUt4t6,
    #I otfloermay not olalwor Noelva q       moner rlthouta law
    iutbori6lng h5.mto do DO, .and slaarly rlxln8 the amount to
    rhioh he 16 ent:tlSd.
              An otiloer 1s not entltlea to any oaqmumtlon in
    ‘dd,lt:onto thatwhiBhha6   beentlred b~Uwiorthe+erlar-
    EEIZJOO
          or hl6 dutle8 of hl6 otfloe eyen though the oixap4ns4-
    tion 60 fired is unroaronable or bdequate.    He repPbe
    requiredby law to pariOn 6QMiri6 6UYfOe6 6nd disoharge
    additional duti66 for whioh no aopeneatloa I6 pmviA6d.
.   l




        &on. 0. 6. Sexron, Sey LO, 1939, 2~35~ 3




        'ihe obll~xt.i,-nto perform sxh services 1s lm;;o?ed as
        ircident to the OrriCe, :ind the CrriCdr by !.ls scce?tmce
        thereof is deessd to have ecgsged to psrfom then without
        cozpensotlon.    Tex. Jur., Vol. 34, p. 507, 511, 515 ant
        yj 5; Crosby Ccunt:.',C:ot.t+le
                                     Co~..psnyv. :Ici;ermett,201 24 293;
        z:cCalle v. city or RockL'ole, 246 5:~C54; Terre11 v. King,
        14 'Y 2nd 76%.

                 The Leglslzture has speclricel:y ?rovlded test
        Flvr Dollars sho,:ld be the only fas the a;plic-nt should
        have to pay in oonneotlon with hls ap;lioetlon, exoept ths
        ocnual lles~se fee rs@red    by the Liquor Control Act, and
        that tba sum of Five Dollars should be by the county clerk
        deymslted 1~ the county treasury, and nblther the oountf
        judge nor the aounty olerk would be authorized to charge
        an additional fee ic oonnectton with said app:lcotlon.

                   * On Woreuber 8, 1937 anl April 22, 1938, this de-
        prrtrant in passing upon the 98310 ,;usstion as submitted in
        your i~;ulry held tbrt neither the oounty jud,q nor the
        oounty olerk WRS authorized to charge sn aldltlonal See
        in connectloc with the applicatloa and thet the. on:y fee
        t?.ct could be sssessed was the Fire Dollar See provided for
        by S8CtiOE     6, Article 2 or the Tees illuor Control Act
        and that this See must be deposited by the county clerk
        alth the county treesurer.

                    YOU me respeotfully advised that It 1s the opin-
        ion of this Eeprrtment that the county Judge 1s not entitled
        to a fee for holding the herirlng on h??lloc.tiona for beer
        ;;nd .slne retslltrs’   ~em1t.s and thct the county olcrk la
        not. eotitled    to a fee ror rlllnr such appllcatlon and his
        clerical work in connection uith such a;plicetion.

                     Trustin   thrt   the for8gOing a5SueTS YOUr   in?UirY,

        we   remln
                                                 i-our.9very   truly