. ._.-

.*. **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTOftNE?**  **QEN ’** **ZkAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **WCC SCLUCC**  **!z!tz=F -**  **. .**  **_~**.: “l&& arrA,,& g;&&&& a&&t.&)& 

### om.ePs‘of a grow-of o&tle.aasembl&t ‘In a glmz territory against the sale ofUSA@: 4m.fnaZs

fqr slaughter,,for hwan consumptionp&&poses,when positive proo$m4.d beeatabZishedthattheoattie are.badlydiecasedvlth ‘ce.nmr or otherdi- ., seasea.,or iafeotI.om tbst renders the meat‘them-, fawn,onflt far hman conaumptlonpwpo8e8.’ ~.

‘Legayt - .’ %n lntereat of proteat& t;aa:Eea~th’of dt% people, ooulclartinjucmtion bs 8ustalneQagainst’ ths huger or .Owner

of bsrXLy

dlsr?ase$, a@ otheP-’ wise unfit ‘llve.ytock for. hunian oyynptlo+ fpq ,I ‘

..Xoaorable Rogep Q. mans, page 3
boLng transported pose of slaughter within the Stata for the purfor humanconsumption p~~posea.

“Legallgt -

“In Interest of protoctlng the Eooalthof our people ooukl en IQJuQCtlOQ bo sustained against ,aninafvidual, a Company,a corporation, dealing exolU3lvely in discasea, crlpplod, or otherwiao unl'it Livestock for humanconswnptlon purpose,
“where positive proof can be entablinhed that aaid individual, Companyor CoPporotion with minor exceptions 

### am8 only in livostod: that ar0 CD~COPous, llllopyjawed, orlppled, OFbadly infected with acreu worms, OPother d~iscases that cause the antiilals to be weaken& to ouch an extent that they may’far1 ilDliQ in tho k;illLng chutes.

“IQ an effort to protect the &alch of OLW citizenship !!ould a clraz*geof sabotage a@lrist an iQdiVth!Zl, a compenyOSx corporation be within the scapo of la..., uhc~~.posLtFvoproQf v!3aostabl’ishod that tha i~~U.viclual, ccmpangor corporation was knovln@y dealin,n, in livestock unfY.tfor humn consurqtlon purposes? Or denllng In root or the ,byproducts that are detrimental to the Ecalth of 0t.z people?

“The CommitteeSmther- wishes to call rour Department to those othor facts. 

### “Thsoi*&

arron@i:cnts vith certain stock yards tha Committco is furnltAm3 with rooords as to the buyma of the above clans of livestock, and UChaao proof that aomobuyer&movethin c&as of C?~WXXW~ livestock to paoturos In lareo gurntlties, which takes than out of jurisdiction of t&3 stock barbs, and thcu resell themto buyers CT;sl.au&terers where Pnthero is no inapoction, or in?dogc.ate inspection uhLchis wo~ae thclnno FnspectLcn la thatHonorable Roger Q. Evans, page 4

it Sools the public. Other buyers movelarge numbers by truclc or by rail to locations that haa no inapectioa, or inspectors that permits such 

### class of animals to be slaughtered for humanconsumption 

### purposes

6

1 ‘Your attention is ftithes called to tho fact

that the people dealing in thls class of llvestock are as clever as ~1 Caponouas andby far a womie enemyto the publla. 

### 1

. “As the Committoelntesprcts the present laws

dealing with slaughtering of livestock for human oonsumpl;lon, that insonitamtgccnditions is about all the law covera, so it is almost impossible to stop the flov of diseased and unfit cattle into the channels of trade for 

### humn consuxy~ionp~lrposes, without a broador lnterpratation of our laus.

“The Committee~113.be glad to furnish avidenco from leading Voterlnsrios that hwbrcds of heads of such cattle are being slau$itered monthly for htimanconsumption pwptme, anri that the meet therefrom Is unfit for hliilsnoto eat. The Commlttoc further hna proof thnt mmhof this meat is aok LA the form of @ound meats, sausages, and lush mats thet is feA to school children ati defense wor+kers 3.npreparing lunches.

“The CommIttoefeels th8.t lnrlch meats and other processed meats should be from just as healthy cattle a3 our prime roasts or,beef steaks.

"Ill our a~penl to you for a gersoril considcration of this witter NOcall your attention f&it tho ldyislaturo sill not bo In regular scsslon for a QG;IP,and during that time the Iiealth of our people is in jaoy~rdy, andvill centintro to grov woxse If the commnyftteo fails to find rclLcf through the Courts, thcrofope ve urg,c:and pray for aoslstante in our effazts to safeguard the llcalth of our peop3.e froia a fev money aceking usocrupulous unworthy people that aye a disgrace to be c$assed 

### 05 citizens of any country, including Sa*n.‘i BoAorablo Roger Q. EVCAS, page 5

HouseResolution No. 232, providing for tho appointment 

### or a Committee to investigate the sale of certain meat, is printed on pages 2623-25 of the Rag3, 1943, issue of the %ouse Journalr Thereport of the,Committeeis printed, on pagoa 3061-63 of the May 11, 1943, iaeue of the Rouse Journal.

Undoubtedly the matters andfacts disclosed both in your latter an8 In the Corzitteo*s report, justify furthcr legiolative treatment stren@henlng the law. Such aale~ should be declared a public ntisance and injunctive relief ape&f ically authorized,

As to your last or fourth guestlon, a careful aearoh of our State statutes on the subject did not dlBolose any statUt;t?AOWin fOrCG app;2icoble t0 the facts 

### ROAtiOA3d iAyou! 1ettorr

‘speculate It is not withln the grOvinCe of this Department to

upon the atificiencg of tho present Federal statutes.

on whetherOuranswer to your first t&se questions depend upthe acts mentloncd therein constitutes a pubI& nuiuonco to prevent which the cGu1tabl.e poues’s of a court of competent ju~ladiction mnybo invoked to prohibit; the contlnuance of euoh acts, The prosent atotutes of Texao do not expressly authorize the issucnce of an injunction to prevent the anle of dead oniasls or the sale and slowhtor of disease& anlrals for humanconsumption. The Bt6tUte3, 

### a3 hereinafter ehoun, do denounce these not3 as orImlnal,

Thegeneral rule is that equttg does not restrain crimes; but a reco@.eed exception to this general rule la that cquitg maylnterpone to restrain acts amounting to crlnee If thE:facts showgroundn for eguitablc jurisdiction, aside from the crL!ninal feature of the Hot comRlaincd of, and a need for the interposition of equity. Nul.z:anccs, 39Am.Jur., 410, fi 147; 4X2, b 148, --
., It should be borne in miindthat the basic conception of a urit of injunctlon 1s that “It is a protective and prevantntivc rather than a restorative writ, nnclshould not be used whcsot&c la%!provides s~npleand efficient moan3for the prevention and punishment of crime and the preservation““cl

Xonorablo Roger Q. Evana, pa@ 6

413. Of rlghtfi.” SanAntonio V. Schutte, (C.A. 1922) 246 3. U, Again in the aa.xxoaae the court said;

‘Injunctions ohould be strictly confined to the purpose of prevcntln~ imeparable injury when

. the law l..sIugdegmte to attain ouch object.

... Theurit of injunction in its bcnoficiont use is an agency of the oourt filled with bleasfngs to the people, but in Its lcvish sod ill-coaaidered application it booomes a terrific abuse of law and order, anda mmme to republican yoverrment

.‘I ITow the poue~ to protect the health of the publio -- - -.. - ~. 18 Inherent in ever aoveralgnty -- kimzel v. Cit 0P ;sen _I Antonlc, (1920 C.A. 221 5. b!. 237, erro;’ refuse

. 9 --..---...-- &L’-&xGy

hotice Fisher of the Austin Court of Civil A.poalo In Ca of Lleno v. Llano cou?lty (1893) 23 9. N. (2d7 100s spklgxug of the use of an equitable remedyas a cumlcti~e remedy, said: Ii

..a Whatever mayhave beer,, OFis nou, the construction placed upouthe comon lawby mm cowt~, to the effect that pu?~lio nuisances that arc ~ololg injurious to the Se;lcml public can only be abated at the 3.nsimxe of the sovereign, either by indlotnent or cc,uitable remedy invoked 

### bg its law 

### offiWu?s to th3.t md, must yield to a policy that has gxorin Into a principle of luu In novt of the etatos of tho Union, to the affect thst the state, in its aoveroign capacity, has delegated its authority In thQ respect to those muulaipal corgorstiono that are nctiug a3 cltg; Sovcruments by authority fron tho state. ..t The Legislatum leas passed 13~ regulatir?g the sln~ghter of an&ale for food connuqtion aud the sale thereof.

i

.Honorable Roger Q. Evans, page 7

Penal Code, Artlolo 707, atatcsa

“For the purposes of this chapter an article still be deemedto be adulterated: ”

...*

“(0) In the case of foodr ”?..

. I "(6) if it oonsists In whole or in pnrt of

a filthy, decomposed or putrid ani!izl or vegetable substance, Or any portiOn of en Einim21or vogatsbh? unfit SOSfood, vhethcr ~~nufnctured or not, or if it is the product of a diseased sniwl, or one that has died otherwise than by slnu@icr.

“The term ‘filthy’ shall be deemodto apply to food not securely protected frou flies, dust, dirt;, and as f6r es mayba necessary by al.1 roasonablo wans, from all foreign or ~njwious contamlnctions, ” 

### Thepcnz.by

fo$violntl~ the pure food l%ws (P.S., $A;, g7) is by fin:, of not lcs s than $25.00 nor nom than

9í l It shall not bc nc ’ccsn~.r -qfor t11.0

iIIdictKont to al1~0 02 foF~?lZjEFm to I~~KXZG the act OSoZXZ5.?Zon ms3 Elo-~~on8 OS pEiEYia7 --- ~lLxIpT3 owa) Nowthe court in ohlch there hns boon presented an indictment or information for casryim on any trade, busiAC89or occupation injurf.ous tO,,publlC health IGIg “Oi’lthe L3pplicatlon of auyoae interested, Ulldostcs hcsrfn~ aridprocOT,

‘restrain the defendant, in such pen!Aty as m&y be dcor;cd propor, from carrying on such tmdo, bu.sLaesnor occupatic%o, or WY m&e such order reqx!ctin~ the mCknne* tXldnpl.~Ce Of carryin on the snmoas mnybe deenod cdvisnble; and if dcfendant be convicted, the rentreint e&ill be l:?lh pel+pctLd.. C.C.P., Arts. 104-109.Ronorable Roger Q. EVOAS,page 8

“Whoevershall carry on any trade, busluess or ~occup3tio~ Injurious to the health of those whoresic!o in tbo vicinity, or suSYrany substance tM.cil &IS that oifect to remin on poemi3eS in his pOXlC33iOll, ShZlrr‘be fined not z than ten nor t101~e

than one huA&ed dollars. Eeoh day la a separate offense.” (mphasis ours) Other articles of the statutes, for instance, Artlclo 4664, define nufsanosst but these definitions are not pmtlnent to tho mtter under discussion. See article on BUSsnnpes 10 23 Tcx. YUP, 409.

The ed In Article $oneral grounds Sor'an'lnjunctlon am enurnerat642. Sactlon 3 of that article Is as Sollovs:

‘f3. Wherethe applicant showshiwolf entitled thereto under the Rr,rinciples of equity, and the pmvinions of the statutes of this State relatlug to the granting of tijunctloas.” And pwti~ular ca3es for lnjmctlon are muxeratcd in Art:- cles 4664-4668, inclusive. Ar,tfele 4663 speclfios that 8

“Tha prinCiplos, pmctlce and procedure govcrni~~ courts of eq~~ityshall govern prooccd~s l~,lnjunctions vherl tha 3me cre AOkin oonf~fct with the provisions OSthis title OFother law." Unqueetionebly tha LoSislatwe 1i3cy provide remdies by Injunction against comon nuiawces, andmy authorize abatenent of such nuisances by injunction. Valllrrirv. State, (C&i,) 173 3. tr. (26) 731, Andsuch injunctions are riot puuitive of crime but am?preventive of public or private injury. ~njwctiom, 24 Tex. Yur., 71, 1 49, n. 20.

I?utx? v. Gunn, (Cd. ) 11.3S. ij’

. 354, held that the rlr-ht to a%& nuiaaacca fs Q,veil ostcbllohed doctrl.ne of sqhtg coLIrt3, and is based on the anxlm th?t tho owner of property mu3tso u3c it as Aot to szatc~iallg injure another. A lawful business my be conducted so a.9to bcconc a nul%xlce, in which case the ono Injwed Chwcby my enjoin the continuunce of the business in such a xay. Block v, Pcrtittn, (C.A.)

### b

:.:

i Honorable RoSer Q. Evans, paSe 9

165 9. W, 504.. So.lt has been held that an lnjunotian will be nanted in behalf of the state to abate a pub110nuisance which Is an Injury to the property or civil rights of. the public at 1arSc andwhich it 2s her duty, as agent of the public, to prevent. State v. Goodnl?ht, 70 Tex. 682, 11 9. W. 119. w of Balton v. Centrai%&%, 33 3. W, 297; State v. PC?;- teroon, 37 9. N, 478.

The rlSht to abate a nuisance does not nscessarily depsnd on the cxlstence of provisions of the penal code defining the act Bought to be enjoined as offense and prescTiblng fine or Imprprisorxxmt therefor. Hetrich v. Stnte, (Clv. App.) 87 3. W. (2d) 887. But wheresstatute does not authorize injunction to abate a public nuisance, the State must plead and prove that the business as conducted HCSa nuisance in fact, otherwjiso she 2s not entitled to an injunct2on. All Texas Rac>zF&estn, v, State, 82 S. W. (2d) 151.~at psSe 197 im’d., !q 9, Gi-gz&n%r In this case an 2njunctLon wan denied because the State want on the theory that bett2ng on the results of do3 races under par2 mutual system was a nuisance por so and prohibited by tho earzbline statutes. The appollate courts hold that the Gamblingstatutes d2d not apply andwere therefore 2nappl2cable.

Aad the Sovernment nsy sbate a nuisance, whether or not the owners have been guilty of crlno. 272 u. 3. 630, 47 9. C. R, 218, 71 L. Ed, 446,Murh. v. tJ.S,,

Thus it has been hbld that health authoritfcs may mainta2n su2ts in equity to enjoin or restrain acts which are a menaaeto the health of the public, even beifors actual injury has been inflicted. 37, 38; Health, 29 C. J. Rcalth, 39 C.J.S. 861, b36, notes 759, n, -j-p; 802, n. 41.]?.258, n, 87; liuisanccs, 49 C. J, Nor 1.3en inja%ii%xcluded because of the penalty provisions 2na statute, supra.

In Cprdwoll v. Austin, (Galveston C.A. 1914), 168 3. W.385, the court heliE%-the Acts, 33rd Le@slatura, ch, 47, pv.nishirq tke pollution of any ue.tcr aourse by the discharge of any ser?agetherain, and providing thnt on conviction thn county court shzll issue an injunotlnn enjoiniw the person or corporation responsible for the pollution from a further aontinuance thereof, does not Oeprfve the district court of jurisdiction to preventand suppress nuisances byHonorable Roger Q. Evans, page 10

injunction. Theappellant CQntendedthat “the county cdurt alone hadjurisdiction” to issue an injunction, it clear,” said the court, “Wethink

“that the Legislature in adopting the Act did not attempt or intend to Interfere with the exerolse by the district court of Its general equity jurisdiction to prevent and supprasa nuisances by meansof the writ of injunction. At most the remedyby injunction conferred by the Act upon the county courts, in only cumulative of the remedy conferl?cd by law uponand resting in the district courts. Certainly it cannot be held that the Act deprived the district courts of jurisdiction, Thoasaf+nmcnt and propositions are wI.thout merit andare overruled.’ The CardwellAustin case has bcon cltod with approval in recent declsl.ons by the SupremeCourt.

Goldsmith and Poval.1, ct al., v. State, (Dallas C.A. l$h?)~ S. k’. (2m34, wr 8. denied, wasa suit by the State to enjoin the defendants from polluting tho waters of tho Neches River because salt water from the defendants’ wells entered into the river, and that the dafendcnts tltnea-

“,~;;t further pollution of tho public water cour$c. The oout

1%creation of such nuisance, they maybe jGbV3d in a coxznonaction, an action in equity fop injuncti.on, against the defandonts whose separate and individual acts resulted ln the zameHonorable Roger Q. Evarzs,page 11
general consequence of wrong.” (mphasls ours) In F3Parte Huy;hes, 

### (1939)133Tex, 

### 505,129S.W. (26) 

### 270,our **suprame c** ourt refused to enjoin the lnfractlons of our usury statutes because the nuisance though it affected the “rights of interest to sona pLU?tlCulRrGroup, even though that group maybe of I&I?@ proportions’ (at pace 277, 2nd column) dld not affect the property or alvll rights of the public at large; in that the usury laws c??cate only p,~lvate, not public, rlghto. I&, Justice Crlte, speaking for the court, at page 

### 274,naidt

“Our courte of equity, ns such, have nojuzlsdlctlon to antartaln sulLts to enjoin the cozmlaslon of acts mme1ybecause such acts comtlt&i0 crimas or yeml offenses unilor penal **lau3.** This Is because equity la not concerned with the enforcement of penal or crlr;llnal statutes. WhE?n the State, throuh its proper officers, invok;os tho jurisdiction of a cou-t OSequity to abate a nuisance, It must bo show:1olthcr that the action 1s darcctly authorized by aor.!3constltutioxl OP staGGory law, or that EL& nuiccrnce 1s an injury to the property ok clvll rights of thz public at large, -- that is, to the public gouerally,

.., (clt Fngauthopltlcs)

.” In Crowderv. C-mhzm, (CA.) 201 3. W. 

### 1053,1055, the court saldr

“It is well settled that, in the abccnce of soms stetuto specifically uuthorlzlng the same, an ln,jur.Gion will not lla to restrain tha violation of a penal statute, sIxply because th3 &cIi enjoined lo dsnounced as an oSfcnse, but that nn tnjuxtlon will lie to rcstrultn the act, cvcn though lt Is an off

’ensc, if it constl.tutes ,apublic nuisance under tho oomon law,” And tho court mast be satisfied that ths antlclp3tcd Injury 1s lminent end certnln to occur, Nulnancss, 

### 31Tcx.Yur., 

### 133, 446, 19. -- pngo 

### n,

._.. .,.I’, ,iXonorable Roger Q. Evaaa,~p3@312

The State my sue to abate a public nul3ance, provided the rights of the public at large are endangered of being injured. Thus In State v. Patterso& 

### (1896)1.4Civ. App. 

### 465,37 9, W. 

### 478,the court at pa@ 479, said:

".,. courts of equity hsve urisdiction to abate public nuisances La ,.. well established .** (oitinz authorities) Rut it doea not aeceiearliy foliow from the facts that a comon ga;aming house is a public nuisance, andthat court3 of equity have jwiodlction by injuaotlon to abate a nuisance, that such jurlsdictlon ~111 be exertioil to rest;tyaln the coiltinumce-of on trade, the abntcmont of a nuiswcc, or the proseoution of a dmgelTOu3enploymnt; but It3 powem to do so in such cases bclon.gs to the &moral powcra possessed by courts of cquL,tyto.prcvcnt Isreparable mischief snd obvieto damgas for which no a~dequaterwrody exists at law.

... thoritles) (citing fluIt is onlv rrbenp~oaertg or civilHonorable Roger Q. Evans, pace 

### 13

the'acts constituting the offense no coznpensatlon for such lajwg, courts of oqulty ~111 interfere to prevent such an Injury, notulthatandlng the comaisslon would constitute a crlninal offense, not because it would be a crina, but because the injury to such rights would be lrrcparable. It cannot be sald that such lnterferenoe by &court OSequity is an Invasion of the domainof the criminal law, for no crime has been cormitted where equity interposes Its ermfor the protoo- .tiOIl Of pXOpOl?ty

OPCfVfl l'i$htS. In C?XtendilI~ Such prOtcCtlOn, it mayprewnt a Crin~; but, as no one hg & Fight to comLt or4me, no olle ohould be 

### hG&Pd

to CoDplain that he is reatzalnod from lts comissim, r!hcnsu.chroetrair,t hpa boon exercised in the jurisdiction of a court for the pwposs of preventing hln from lrrep2rabI.y lnjurlng anothor In his proportg or clvll ri&ts. But courts of cqulty never lntcrfcro for the purpose of acts constituting crino bocouoe they fm crti1~1, for they have nothing to do w5.thtrim as **SUCL** Thclr interposition is solely fop the pi*otection of proqerty 02 oivlX rl$ts; and, the only GlsCln~tlon b&w-en c pH.vate and a public nuloanco be&as that the one 1s cn lrjury to such riefitn of an igdividu%l and the other to trio rights of tho public at large, ‘tho sameprinciple must guide tho interforeace of the oourt in both cases, and that prlnclplo 

### is this : whether the extent oT thG da~ifigeand lnjbwy be such as the 

### larf will not afford an adcguato and oufflckat rercody.' Attorney Genoml v, Sheffield Gas Consumrsl Co., 19Eng. Law&6~. 

### 644. Thwefore,

throwh her ~rol;e_r_oPf~~er~;~~~.~:s rjT0. cous‘t-ol:. Q(li~fl;V to ,$:j:j,f

‘g-=~ d-d'-A- she Fz3t &IV t!lnt nl?shi~uia~~zcc .--- 13an in$i?,ryto the ~ZZ~iZGZiXliS~i!~~t3 0.T ---y~Q-ggjg~ the ~_,q----------- aJql.t of t&3puarc, 'TTf3 it 3,sher i;ur;:r,s the co Jy~r~* l ,*F;1 r,:;pEZi3 OUT}


### 78L.In I!ebbln v,>TeirYoP&, 502, 

### 549. Ct. 

### 505, 507, EdTi%?jpy iii{. 291 U..9. 146y, lfti. Justfee Roberts pertinently observed;Honorable Roger Q, Evans, page 14

“The Constitutiod liberty to conduct hFs to inflict lnjury~upon does not aecura to any one business in such Sashion as tne publfc at large, or upon any substaatial group of the people.” The late rovercd Chief Justice Nelson Phillips had the same thought in mindwhon in S nnv. City of Dallas, (1921) 111 Texr350,x235 S. It.513, -f&i, he said:

“The pollco power is fouhded ia public nocessitg, and only publLc necessity can justify its exercise. Theresult OSits oporat1on is A2Iturslly, in most instances, the abridfgmnt OSprivat0 3? tg11ts. Private rights OFO never to be sacrificod to a greater extent thah necessary. ThweSort, the rgturn for their sacrifice through the e,xerclse OSthe police povcr should be the attainment of som .pubZLcobjact of aLlCSiciont necessity and importanca to juotQ varrant the exertion of the pokier.

“Since the right of the citizen to use his property OShe chooses so long as he harm nobody, is mei iP_hei'~At and COAstLtutior?i?l ri&It, the POlloe paver cannot be Lnvokodfor the abridg;zant of a particu3nr use of prtvute property, unless such use reasonably endangers or threatens the public health, the Eublic safety, the public cohort
or welfare.

... (Enphasiu'ours) Cattle 3ufforing:' frow a dangerous, fnfeotloua, or cozmmlcable disease are public nuisances at co-Don law. A nulsnncs at comon lax<could not be lc~alleed. People v31 ArL&?r3oa, (1934) 355 111, 289, 189 pi. E. 338, ai;-'iZET~.

In cO!21. V. 3[;lCnn-L, (1913) 240 Pa. 21*h, 87 Atl. 605, 47 L. h.?.r(‘3y)-@(;j, the Pennsylvania Suprem CourtHonorablo Roger Q, EvaAs, pnge 15

he.ld the pollution is in the riparian of a stream the title to the bed of which owners to be a pub110nuisance, tho POAA-

. . SylVcAi8 LegislatuF% having t+Weit a misdex?mnor punlsMble 1 by Sine or lnprisonraont to pollute any of the vatsrs IA that

stats, the court held thati injunction lies against tha pollution of a stream In such a manneraa to CoAotitutc a pub310 nuisaAce, saying:

”

.., Because se~!go is the most officlent mediumfor the BisseninatioA of infecting germs, uhlch do their deadly work in ouch an iASiAite vcrlaty of Insidious ways, not at all dcpenfknt upon Sroe access of tho public to the stroen which tha germs pollute, it cnn~ot bs said that the tripwian o:mrs alone have an interest in the stream*’ l.hcn this doleterlouo substanco pollutes any running stream the public hcslth is endtin$?red thereby. The infection from which the rPpsrLa\n ol;ner hifilsolf maypercdvonture escape ray nevertheless in a hundrodways, Ghxoughhis Innocent acts, sprcnd throwh a co.~int.u~2ty; for he no ~j;ore than any othsr, Lives to hinaclf alone.

...‘I W-LSPC the property rights of nsny cltizcns are involved, it is proper for the government on their behalf to Invoke pouers of equity, end the injunctive pocess my be i~volml k?hcnthe health or very existence OSthe people is menacedby the deprivation OSesscntU.3 Sood or by service of such food in a coutan@atcd stats. ILLsoequity has the inherent power to restrain threatened nuisances dnARcrousto the health of the whole community, this boicz an exception to the erincicle that a court of couity has nojurisdiction ia msttk3 of-crime. 1935) 179iitl, 116. State V, RetGrkiiil.2~ Cs; (IZcvYcrscy, In that case the ~0uZ~~r.t pago 121)

“This principle should not be extended beyond its sound constitutional basis. Thepo;!cr here ezorcfsoc? is inherent in courts OSequity. Equito.b,le jcrlsdictica has ah~xga been cxcrcissd to restrairl tixpsteaed nuiennccc d.angcro3os to -...--Donorablo Roger Q. Evans, page 16

the health of the whole oomnunlty; Ita exercise antedncos our Constitution. In Heddeav. Rand, supra, Justice Rellsch, quoting from State v. Uhrl& 14 MO.App. 413, sets forth the grounds Par equitable interposition in cases of public nuimncea : ‘“(1) Torestrain purpreoturcs of public highnays or navlSat5.0nsr +*+ (2) Torestrain threataned nuisances dangerous to the health of the wholo community. ***’ (3) Torestrain ultra vires acts of corporations Injurious to public ri@G; tiend that the exeralse of equity jurisdictloti Iti these three classe~s of cases is an exception to the rule *** that a Court of equity has nojurisdiction in matters of crime.’ In Hutchinson V. Board of Health of City of Trenton, 39 M, J. Eq. 569, this court sustained a decree enjoining the &lscbarSe into a water ooursc, throu$ a pipe, of filth and offensive matter from 8 hotel.

..,

“Roreover, the milk business ,.. is affected with a public interest) and it is the settled rule in this state that equity m,oy Intervene to reotrsin a course of oonduat, in respect of a business OSthis character, vhlch tonda to affect the public lntcrest injuriously.

... (citing authoritics) Wherethe property ri&ta of many citierna are involved, it is proper for the government won thoi.r behalf to invoke the Dover3 of equity; Pomcroy*s.Equitabla Rcaadiss;[~ 480. A fortiori, the injunctive power maybe invoked whentho health 05 very existeuce oc?he neoplo in man!xe~~~tion 01’an esscn’iaLlyood comuodity, Or it8 SerVlCe in a COntXlj~:j.n~tedState." -@mphas13Ours) All those uhoact together for the ultimate purpose of sclllng dlaez.eed meat to the public for humanconsumption maybe enjoined a8 such a business 13, in our OpinlOn, a public nuianncei

The sale OSCaftla such Rs you describe for slaughtor to be sold as food for huean consumption certainly constltutes a menaceto the health of the citizens. Sucha business

---Honorable Roger Q. Evans, page 17

i 

## i 1 I 1 Is, in our opinion, a public nulsancc, 

### ma, ~8 gou state, AAless enjoined from being sold for 

### huma consumption 

### would cause BAepidcnic of disease.

The State Board of Bealth and the State Health Officer have Eonera supervision and control of all matters ,pertainin to thd health of the citizens of this State. See Artides &

418d, 4420, 4421, 4446. While as far as 

### pOp0m.a cases in Texas are concerned, rellef OSthe character contemplated has not been granted or denied upon the exact facts disclosed by your letter; it .dces not f,ollow by any mseas that the above cited precedents or authorities are 

### ACtapplicable or controlling. Precedeuts illustrate principles. They serve to den;onutrate howand uhcn they have beeu applied, The true precedent, however, is the correct pritMplo applicable tc the facts OSa particuLar case. Courts should be “swift and fearless” to protect the health of the aitieens,

To limit the Statc solely to the prosecution of those whoviolate the public health 

### 2GWS of Texas meansthat the state would be cCmppllk3d to wit until the hcolth wmce, dincorafort, ill-health and perhaps d.eath, Is actually pwscnt, To be of real. value health authorities must huve authorlty to

, take, ad the couvts should aid in taking OS, such action as is nccossa~y to provent a health mnsco which is roosonsbly likely to occur under the facts and clrcumtances applicable thereto. Trusting the foregoing fully answers your inquiries,
I. very truly yotws d--- A,TORBIZX

GEIkRAL

OPITEY&S

David Kuntch Assistcint