OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY aLNLRAL OF TEXAS

Deer Governorr

'. wll yo> &asr rendu us a boolslonu to hethr M not the sherlft~a aotionsas erldoaoeh~bythe afflduvlt in hlr file allow Gorrrnor GQmis&.'to pay the ruardthat was authorited by tM'enelosed proolamatlon, Ho. 977." The shmiif's afiidavit aooobipwiylng

hi8 olaim OS the reward disolo8er the r0u0hg:

wn tba afternoon

or A-1 llth, A. D., 1910, aotlng an inrormationrhish I had resolved, I lest Buumont to go to Kouutse, Texas, in an attempt to looateIr,d arrmstThoma8 J.Eonorable BV, Leo O*DaUel - Page Z

*Red’ Oolenan. I warn aooompanled

by J. H. Allen,E. T. Poole,BomW F'renoh, Sr. all Deputysheriifrin Joffrrson County,Las. Sh8a I rraohedKountxe I ukad Yr. MU.@8 Jordan sherlrfor din county to go with 

### 7; ;.î c he h o uxi *he r8 t h i s m a n w a s l u ppo Be & It la loaated

about fire miles aouthneet & ths toun of Kountse, andla in tha 

### l d@ of the @BlgdUhlokot*. Khan we rmohod

not in the houm but wn# later oonwrlb 

### l

boutfittyyarb froprthe hours. I oallod to him to oome out wifb his hands up but,& anmued us wlth a blast or gun tire, and WI won foroedto fire for out own proteotion,

whloh resultedin his deatk."
It ir the opinionof this drp-srtment that Sheriff iIlahardaon,

under the.raota di8Olmed by his affidavit and SUQpOXTthg

proof,is entltlaato thf3 rwmrd offered by y0I.W Xxoellsncy.

The relative rl@ts at one oLferi.n& a reward and of cm olaiming

it are ordlnarlly

de.tzrained by the law of oontraot, This Is es~oolally truenhere the oftiobr la a plvate prson. Ths reward oo.?stltutea the orier 0s oontmot and the ~erformanoe of the thiJl&

to be rmarded oonatltutea

the aooeptanoe. 0rdlnully, the one olaimlngthe reward offeredby a private person wodd have to Imow of the offer beZore Ll.8 pertomanoe of service oould m oonstruedas M aooeptanoe of the offer. Miere, however,tha rewardla by virtue of a statute,

or what is the atune t>Ang in legal effeot 1s one offeredby the Gcwsmor ~?X~UUL~ to lawfulauthority, it is not so definitely a oontraot. It does of ?~oursa, oontain

n6ny 0s the elementsof a oxitraot, 

# iutwltt respeotto the requirements of a prwio~ kxmwled~~ 0s the orru, **the** mile and betterreason,we think, m-m not to requiresuch previous knowledge.
In Broadmx vs. Ledbetter, (Tax.) 99 9. W. llll, the Supreme Court said:Honorable Y. Loo OWaalol, Pago S

Vhil8 W@

ham mm M l

uah diatlnotlm

oltlsoaaustari8o froma ooatrriot bindhia to pay** This l.an@a$o

poarlblyla a diotum, nevertheless it ban boon puotodand rollw8d by the supron court or Nevhdo in Smith ‘Ia. State, Ibl Pao. 6%

uorearer, we aaawus the *sot to be that sheriff 3lohudnon did know of the r8waH aad aou&ht to make tho arrest.

beoauae thoraof, Xhathartha reward offoradby a private perom or by %he covernmsnt lt0eir, nevarthelosa

c bsrareone oan olakn the reward, he mat havr oo plied a leaat aubetantlally with ths termaand oonditlcma of tha offer. (See 30 Tax. Jur. p* 967 1 6)

The question

reours there&r0 whetheror n& Shari** Rlohardaan

has oomplladsubstantially with tha offer by the Governor.

T&s offer oantafnod in the proolamation was *for lnformatlon

leadingto the uroot, **dOliY8ry and**  **oon** viotlon0s aald T..

J. 'Red'coioni~3to tho **sharr** or Bardin county, Tens, inside the jail door **0s** ssAd oounty w whore&a,

Goldman

was novu arrested, doUrorod or oonv ioted; but on tha oolltrary, was klllsd

while roslatlng

arrest. whetheror not there W been a nubstantlal oompliano8 with the offor 0s tha rowarE cm the part 0s tho aharlii,la a amst lntereatlag quo+ion, and on0 that has never arlaea in tho oourta of this Stats, but 600s l gpeu to hue been dooided by the supreme Court or Nevada in smith vsb State,etapaw It la thsro aaldr

@The taot upon whiah tha looond quastlan must k deteminod has no pm1101 ia the re-Xonomblo a. Lao OWenloL - PagO 4

portedoases,and 

# yet

we think gno odat oxl8ts f or a r u l e

w h l o h la l pplloablo o the fasts or thla oau* The orru ‘or the romrd w *far the urootand ooavlotl~ or the puooa or pormana gdlty 0s the mudor or Hury CIplbron ti three L’a8oolatoa~~ There was arlthor arrest nor 00nvlotl0a,

for uaoroema that the rsons * ullty 0s the audd wo~o all kiuod w a& r lb ntlng arrort. The p&roonoocmpoalng thapoaae wue authorized

to make an arrest of the murdererae ROT. Laws, I 8964. The takingof the Urea of the murderers, whllo realoting arrestby roroe of arm8, was aleo i urtliiablb, 6396, 6397, X6 Rot, IAWS, II

sa **d** In the notes to the oaae of XlklnevD .iiiipandotte County,auprar ‘In oonstruing rewardsofm?ed for arrestand corn--lotion, the oourtshave been lnoUned tt look dth diatator on a too teohnleal5nterpretatAoz of the ward “oonviotlon.“’ 46 L*R.A..

(N.3.)664. *The audor of the note also saysa ‘one rho offers a r&ward for the p&ertormanoe or a certainocrvloe

may presorlbe

any tQrzshe map wish, but, as erperlenoe h&a ahcm thatmany persona

ue prof’uae

In thler promlsea

md slow In aeethg them, and are lnollzed to take advantage of m&r8 teohhloalltlea in order to avoid oarrylng out their end of the agreement, ooiirts have often,as In Xlklnave ;iyendotto Gounty, held that l

ubat&ntlaL

oompliano~

with the terms la auffiolent,

espeol&Uy where a literalocmpllanoo

would be lmposslble.* ‘The 3Upm CO& Of **COmOOtiOUt** in RO Xelly, 39 Cohn* 159, held: ‘Thatthe atatuta ought to reoelrean ec,ultabl&, not a atrlot or toohniool,

oo~~truotlon,

and thit, so construed tht:

petltlonzr

waa Salripwithin Its provl&na* and e:;tltled to the reward.
“In hsakellv. Davldmn, 91 Yie, 4S, 42 I,. R. A. 155, 64 AJi.

St. Rep. 954, 40 rt1. 330, It uaa held: ‘An offer 0s a rewardfor &the arrest aad ooxvaotlon& of en offender o&hnot be taken literally.*Honorablrii. Loo O'DanIOl- Pa@ 5

-0 O&SO **.0r** bt0s04V* sta0, x83 nr. 492 56 3. iv.985, Is anala at L. It was thoroin ho1 I ‘Plaintiff r us to tho on0

IS 0situd to a reword 0rrorod by tfu gofernor r0r the rrre8t or a tugitir0 d hi8 d0- llroryto tho arrostho mun a

allsr,thowh in w tho 06 ths fueltlro10 @at ho ~~o~foro ho oouldbe dollvorod to tho & '3 the oase at bar the arrest and aonr dd.0n 0r tho parsons r0r whoa the reward was offorod

was rondorodi~possIblo by roaaon or thoIr beingkiLlodwhllo rosIstIng arrost. 'Tholr killing,in the manner dotaIlo4In tho hgrood statemoat

of raots, was justlrlablo, and o ratod as a lawfuloxausofor noncll 0ompl oe with the Sull cond.ItIons of tho rowarb, It Is OUT oanoluslon that thoro has been shown a substantial oompilanoo with the oomlItIons

of the reward,

and tho respondants are entitledto rooovor.~ ire aonour In the reasoning and oonolusion

of the Xeva4a aqmxne Court. It Is our opinionthat Lr, Rlohardson has oorreotly

sunmarlzed

the mttor in his letterof olaim,a8 r0u0w8:

"III VieN Of the fOregOi~ r~iat8 Wo fOei that we have saved the Stateof Texas quit0 a sum of money In oxoess of yourroward,and at tho 8aii0

time furthered the lnterost or woloty."

xn judlalal

language

we think the 8horirr has substant

Wllg oomplled

with tho terms of the Governom*s groolam&Ion oiteriq the reword, and that he is entitled to reoelvothe same. Vary truly yours ATTOiWEY -L OF TDAS

09-m APPRQV'LD

Jm 11, 1940 /I/ oorald C* MsDn ATTOlfNET

W!JWbU OF TEXAS BY
Assisteat AiTROVED O?INxOK

CWXITTXZ By /sj BeW.B.,Chairman