August 24, 1953 

Hon. Rotart SL oalvert 

Comptrollar of PI&UC Acoounts 

Austin, Texas .Opinlon NO. s-89 

Rer 

Dear 1wr, Calvert: 

1, Authority of the Comptroller to Issue warrant4 in 

payment of wltneea feet3 aosigned to a county. 

2. Aut,hority to Issue warrants for witness Pees,to, ang,.~ 

of the offio,ers named in k&4- 

cl& 380, Vernon's Penal Code, 

when such officers have purchased such wit~nesa fee bIlla. 

Your request for 

follows: 

our opinion read0 in part a0 

"This Department has received a witness 

fee bill for fees 'aooruing to,a witness under 

the provisions of Article 1036 C.C.P* The 

wltneea apparently attempted to assign hi6 

witness fee account to Jeff Davis County,, 

which County paid the 'wltneas,the full amount 

of hle witneerr fee aocount. The Dleerlot 

Clerk of the County requests that a~Uarrhnt 

;;e:asued to the County for these witness 

. 

Yioulcl it be legal r0r this nbrttint 

to Issue a warrant to the County Par these 

fees? 

"Would It be legal for this Departmmt 

to issue a warrant for ritnass feed to iucf 

o? the oflioer;s named in Arelole 380 P,C. in 

lnstanoes when said oPflosrB have purohaBQd 

witness fee bills?" 
. 1 

Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (S-89) 

Section 5 of Article 1036, Vernon’s Code of 

Criminal Procedure, provides in part as follows: 

"The Comptroller, upon reaeipt of such 

claim and the certified list provided for 

in the foregoing section, shall carefully 

examine the same, and If he deems said 

claim correct, and In compliance with and 

authorized by law in every respect, draw his 

warrant on the State Treasury for the amount 

due in favor of the witness entitled to 

same, or to any person such certificate has 

been assigned by such witness, but no warrant shall issue to any assignee of such 

witness' claim unless the assignment is made 

under oath and~acknowledged before some person duly authorized,to administer o.aths, 

certified to by the Officer and under seal." 

It is noted that the attempted assignment of 

the witness fee bill involved assigns the account to the 

witness himself, and is therefore ineffective as an 

assignment. Therefore, under the section of Article 

1036 quoted above, the Comptroller would not be authorized to Issue a warrant in payment of such claim to any 

person other than the witness himself. 

It is, probable that this assignment can be 

corrected to show that Jeff Davis County Is the:,true assignee,~as such appears to have been the Intent of the 

parties, and the claim then again presented to your 

office. 

In such event it is assumed that your first 

question was Intended to inquire as to the legality of 

payment after an assignment of such a claim to a county. 

In this regard it is noted that the part of Section 5 

above quoted authorizes an assignment "to any person." 

Article 1572, V.C.S., provides "Each co.unty. 

which now exists or which may be hereafter established 

shall be a body corporate and politic." Article 23, 

V.C.S., provides in part, "The following meaning shall 

be given to each of the following words, unless a different meaning is apparent from the context; 2. 'Person' 
1 - 

Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 3 (S-89) 

lncludea a corporatlonrn 

Live Oak Count 

City of Taho 

CorPun chI%lti v* 

tT Cl A 1957) ; 

8g,‘:i6 ::w:‘c?162 

, 166 s .w. 470, 472 

There being no Indication that the Legislature 

intended a more restrictive meaning It follows that a 

county would be Included In the foregoing phrase authorizing assignments “to any person”, It is our opln,lon 

that if a valid claim for witness fees in a felony case, 

prop,erly assigned to Jeff Davis County, is presented 

within twelve monthe from the date same became due, It 

would be legal to Issue a warrant to said county for 

such fees. 

Your seoond question Is, ‘Would It be legal 

for the Department to Issue a warrant for wltness~ fees 

to any of the officers named In Article 380, P.C., In 

if;:“,;;$es when said officer8 have purchased witness fee 

Article 380, Vernon’s Penal Code, reads as 

follows: 

“Any county judge, clerk or deputy clerk 

of any district or county court, sheriff, or 

his deputy, justice of the peace or constable, 

who shall purchase or otherwise acquire from 

the party Interested any fee or fees coming 

to any witness In any proceeding whatever, 

either before the district or county court, 

or the court of any justice of the peace, 

or before any coroner’8 Inquest, shall b$ 

fined not exceeding one hundred dollars. 

The atatute involved Is very inclusive and 

denounces those designated officers who “purchase or 

otherwise aoquire from the party interested” any such 

witness fees, and such purchase would bye Illegal and 

void. Texas Anchor Fence Co. y. City of ~San Antonio,, 

71 S.W. 301 (T Clv.App, 1902). This would include aoquisltlon In aiG*manner other than by lnheritanoe or 
-. / 

Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 4 (S-89) 

operation of law. Of course, this would Aot apply to .a 

sheriff or con&able advancfng funds to a witness in conformity with Article 477, Vernon's Code of Criminal 

Procedure. 

246 (1900). 

Sparks v. State, 42 Tex.Crim. 374, 60 S.W. 

It follows therefore that the Comptroller would 

not 'be authorized to issue warrant,s to the officera named 

In Article 380, V.P.C., In Instances when such officers 

have purchased wltneas fee bills. 

SUMMARY 

The Comptroller is authorized to lssue a warrant to a county to pay a witness 

certificate which has been properly assigned 

to such county. Article 1036, V.C.C.P. 

The Comptroller is not authorized to 

issue a warrant for witness fees to any of 

the officers named In Article 380, Vernon's 

Penal Code, when such officers have Purchased witness fee bills. 

8' 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs,,Dlvislon 

Yours very truly, 

'JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 

Attorney General 

Willis E. Gresham 

Reviewer. 

Robert S. Trottl 

First Assistant 

BY 

Assistant