OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
Hmorable Walter Cnpson, page 2 

in the petltion and defined by the Commiaaionera 

Court to detem?Ine whether homea, mules, jaaks, 

jentm%e, and cattle shall be permitted to run at 

large fn swh gounty or sqab suWtislon of 8 

.aoutxty a8 asag W dewrl?md bx the petition and 

defined by the Capnnisaionera Court. . . ." 

#Povldee t 

Articrle 16, +wtian 23 of the Oanstitiution of t&cas 

' %w &e@alatuzw mar pare lay8 for the 

tegttltW.on of live irtods t@ the pyataat;ion 

of #toolc rafsers:ln .the lrooak ralsfng portian 

of the StSte, and emupt Finn the operatian of 

rruoh laws other portlpn5, seetlons, or. aoyntlesl 

aad 8haY.l~ hwe pawer to pass gener5.l and mpeaLal laws fix the inapeatian at a&t&6, stack8 

aad ,Mdes emI for the regulation of brsnd8; 

pravlded that imy local lav thtia paaead i&l1 

be r&ubed(ted to. th6 treehaidelr of the UeatLw 
- . 

Pxinrsble %.lter CRPBOIL, page j 

Other &es ‘ao&truf 

7 

a similar lav (Artiolee 6930 

end 6932, R.C.S. of Texas, 1925 do not seem to have limited 

the rnes.nir#g@.~,~,~ ~:tqlsa~:~.eub@i+VialoRU ,to a~~knopp~p6~iti~ 

subdivision of ‘the aouatg. 

In lnoe 8. Barber, (civ. App.)' 24i’i.W<“iii? the 

court h&d that under Art ioles 6950 :-aa&~2; .:+&C .8.3& 3Texas , 

1925, a petition, deecrlbing the subdivlsion as, “All of,Liye 

o& Peninsula, berag all that portPan of said oounty bounded 

on. the east by Bt@ Fish and Araneas +ye,, TO?,,:t+a@$h by, I. 

ArsIlctis ar+Copaxic BAya, on ths #c&h .by the northern’ %ie 

of San Pt3~3t34~0 County* va8 suf'fioignt. :.:. *:,,~l;:. '::::'::~.~.;::i:

In the caee of Johnson w. State, (Orlm. App. 

S.W. 609, the court held that under Articles 6930 and 

244 

$32, 

above referred to, a description of E eubdlvleion of Aranrae 

County aa "Live Oak Peninsula, bounded on the east by Red Biah 

and Ammeas Bags; on the north by Aransae and Copano Bqe; on 

the vest by Copano and Puerto B~ye and on the south by the 

line between the oouutles Sen Patrieio and Aransae” was aufflcient . 

while the authorities, herelnebove resewed to, do 

not oonstrue the provisions of Article 6954, aupra, ve think 

they me pertinent and a&mlioable to asoertaln the meatking 

of the term “subdlvi.slon as wed In aaid statute, 

We believe the provleions of Artiole 6954, rtxpra, 

are susceptible of even a awe liberal interpretatlotl, in 

ao far aa lta tema authorhe the reqtielte mxnbe2 of petltloners to presorlbeb in their petition, the aree or tomitory or *subdivIsIon of the county In which en eleotlon 1s 

to be called and held,than the efPlilar aata oonetrued in the 

caeea cited. 

You are, therefore, advleed that In our opl.nLou the 

petitioners are authorised, by Artlole 6954, supra, to define 

the boundaries of the territory In vhleh it is derirsd to have 

a rtoek lau eleation eazled md held, whloh petition, lf 

signed by the reqtiaZte aua@e~ of freeholderr, and dercrlptlon vould proper1 be the basis of an order of the Connnlssianera' Court ca 19 lug the eleotion, in the subdivision des- 
iionorable Wplter Caraon , page 4 

cribed in the petition, and #at suoh erea may bo an unincorporated town. 

Yom brief in thler netter wae very helpful to us. 

Youru very truly 

4. 

,Q~~JIJED JUN I-=, 1941 ATTORNEY C4BW3FiAL OF TKXG3 

HMrdb