OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS AUSTIN

Em&able Thos. 

### CountyAttorney Robertson Ccunty ?ranklin, Texas 8. Chandler
c\.. : Dear Slrr

A

.

to the oomlaowedexpenses nanely district ntlon, sherirr*e antp comlissione85or 51~3Colleoprovisions of Revised Civil Statutes of sunended 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 errpoweredand pemltted to purchase andhave chnreed to his oounty all reasonable er;?enses necessary in the proper andlegal conduct 

### ofhis office, premiums

### onofficiala' 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 OSposslbl~, 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 expenses 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 towhether funds are ,. avallable for payment of such expenses.w ‘

. In the .case ot State VS. Cernes, 1OCST (2) 397, tha ~cou,rtccnstrued 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 llmlted to stotlonery, stamps, telephone, traveling 

### expenses, .andother 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 semckindor 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 andthe evidence supported the fact thnt th6 sorvlces of astenographer to assist the county attorney xero necessary:

=It maybe thnt such assistance wanneces- -.sary-in this particular oaso, to enable the countyc ‘c

. -.

c


### Ron.Thos.B.

**attorney but**  **that right**  **to** to dettei dlscherge hls duties;

feet clone does not confer the. pey r0r such assistance out of public fuuds. Suchauthority m.ustco38 trora soue appropriate stetute. Theone relied on does not @ve it.*

ChamUer, Llaylp, 1939, Pa&e3 -

.

Weake nnoble to

’find any stetutory authority authorizing the couulssloners’ court to pay the expenses of the above nornedofficers to their respective orsicers* aonventlons, e.ndthou&hretsonable 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 officers ,expcnses incurred in ettendlc5 their rbbpcotivo offlclers* conventions; Suchexpenses, though.reasonnble, would not be neoessary in the proper end legel.conduct of :, thelr offlcee.

In keeping with your re:ucst, weherewith en- ’ olose.ooples of oplnlons rendered bythfs dqartzent, No. O-331 as mended endho. O-332. Opinion hootO-331, not specifically onsxerin5 the point raised by **the** request,: wastithdrnm and in lieu thoreor. our opinion Mo.O-331 aa amnded’ mmrendered.

raeain Trustla5 **tb6** above answers your request, t& Very truly yours

Enclosures 

# E

3 , L