OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Em&able Thos. 8. Chandler
County Attorney
Robertson Ccunty
?ranklin, Texas c\.. :
Dear Slrr
A.
to the oomla-
owed expenses
nanely district
ntlon, sherirr*e
antp comlission-
e85or 51~3 Colleo-
provisions of
Revised Civil Statutes of
s unended bj the Acts or the
re (1937) page 1340, ohopter
4, paragraph (b). :
Y%uld such expenses be reeaonable and
neoossary in the proper logo1 conduct of
either of such orfloers?m
Article 3699, as enanacd, in pnrt reads:
“(b) Each offioer rimed in this Act,
Eon. Thos. Il. Chandler, Bay 19, 1839, Page 2
.
'-where he receive8 a salary as compensation
3or this aervlces, shall be errpowered and
pemltted to purchase and have chnreed
to his oounty all reasonable er;?enses
necessary in the proper and legal conduct
of his office, premiums on officiala'
bonds, prenlum on firo,.bur&lery, theft,
robbery insurance proteoting public funds
and lacludlcg the cost of surety bonds for
his DeFutles, such exncnseo to bo ;?assed
on, pre-determined snd elloued in kind end
amounts, as nearly OS posslbl~, by the
Comnlssloners* Court occe eech Eonth for the
ensuing month, upcn the application by each
officer, ststinq the kind, probable amount
oi’ expenditure ond the necessity ror the ex-
penses of his ofilco for such ensuing month,
irhlch application shall, before presentation
to said court, first be endorsed by the
County Auditor, lf~any, otherwise the County
Treasurer, only es to whether funds are ,.
avallable for payment of such expenses.w ‘.
In the .case ot State VS. Cernes, 1OC ST (2) 397,
tha ~cou,rt ccnstrued Article S399, Acts of 1933, 4.3rd
Legislature, substantlolly the sme~as our present.Artlcle
‘3S99, supra, holding that the expenses, bther then those
oxpendlturea in connection with automobiles,. which en
ofrioer 1s outhorlzed to olalm as deductions, are llmlt-
ed to stotlonery, stamps, telephone, traveling expenses,
.and other slmAlor mccnsary cxpansos; the rule of ejusden
.&eneris be1r.g applied to qualify the general language
of the specially enumerated Item end to restriot its
meanlng~to expenses of semc kind or clnss - citing Cameron
County vs. Fox (Tex. Civ; App.) 42 S.7 (2) 653; Casey vs?
State (Pex. Clr. App.) 289 % 420 (writ rofusod). We
quote from the lanSw&e used in the Cesey vs. State
case, supra, wherein the jury found and the evidence
supported the fact thnt th6 sorvlces of a stenographer
to assist the county attorney xero necessary:
=It may be thnt such assistance wan neces-
-.sary-in this particular oaso, to enable the county
c -.
‘c .
c
Ron. Thos. B. ChamUer, Llay lp, 1939, Pa&e 3 -
.
attorney to dettei dlscherge hls duties;
but that feet clone does not confer the.
right to pey r0r such assistance out of
public fuuds. Such authority m.ust co38
trora soue appropriate stetute. The one
relied on does not @ve it.*
We ake nnoble to’find any stetutory authority
authorizing the couulssloners’ court to pay the expenses
of the above norned officers to their respective orsicers*
aonventlons, e.nd thou&h retsonable in mount, under the
statutes referred to, such eqcnses would not under the
authorities cited be *necessary in the proper oud lewl
conduct of their respective offices.*
It 1s therefore the dpl&n of this dspartanent
that rbrtlole 3899, section (b) does.not euthorize the
couulssloners~~~ court to ellow to district ond~ county offi-
cers ,expcnses incurred in ettendlc5 their rbbpcotivo offl-
clers* conventions; Such expenses, though .reasonnble,
would not be neoessary in the proper end legel.conduct of :,
thelr offlcee.
In keeping with your re:ucst, we herewith en- ’
olose.ooples of oplnlons rendered by thfs dqartzent,
No. O-331 as mended end ho. O-332. Opinion hoot O-331,
not specifically onsxerin5 the point raised by the request,:
was tithdrnm and in lieu thoreor. our opinion Mo.O-331
aa amnded’ mm rendered.
Trustla5 tb6 above answers your request, t&
raeain
Very truly yours
Enclosures
E
,L
3