OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY aLNLRAL OF TEXAS 

Deer Governorr 

'. wll yo> &asr rendu us a boolslon u 

to hethr M not the sherlft~a aotions as erldoaoeh~by the 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 looate Ir,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 

Deputy sheriifr in Joffrrson County, Las. 

Sh8a I rraohed Kountxe I ukad Yr. MU.@8 

Jordan sherlrf or din county to go with 

7; ;.î c he h o ux*hei trh8 ims a wn a s l uppo 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 foroed to fire for out own 

proteotion, whloh resulted in his deatk." 

It ir the opinion of this drp-srtment that Sheriff 

iIlahardaon, under the .raota di8Olmed by his affidavit and 

SUQpOXTthg proof, is entltlaa to 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 true nhere 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 olaimlng the 

reward offered by a private person wodd have to Imow of 

the offer beZore Ll.8 pertomanoe of service oould m oonstrued as M aooeptanoe of the offer. 

Miere, however, tha reward la by virtue of a 

statute, or what is the atune t>Ang in legal effeot 1s 

one offered by the Gcwsmor ~?X~UUL~ to lawful authority, 

it is not so definitely a oontraot. It does of ?~oursa, 

oontain n6ny 0s the elements of a oxitraot, iut wltt 

respeot to the requirements of a prwio~ kxmwled~~ 0s 

the orru, the mile and better reason, we think, m-m not 

to require such 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 poarlbly la a diotum, nevertheless 

it ban boon puotod and 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, 

Xhathar tha reward offorad by a private perom 

or by %he covernmsnt lt0eir, nevarthelosa 

c 

bsrare one oan 

olakn the reward, he mat havr oo plied a leaat aubetantlally with ths terma and oonditlcma of tha offer. (See 30 Tax. 

Jur. p* 967 1 6) 

The question reours there&r0 whether or n& 

Shari** Rlohardaan has oompllad substantially with tha 

offer by the Governor. 

T&s offer oantafnod in the proolamation was 

*for lnformatlon leading to the uroot, dOliY8ry and oonviotlon 0s aald T.. J. 'Red' coioni~3 to tho sharr or Bardin county, Tens, inside the jail door 0s ssAd oounty w 

whore&a, Goldman was novu arrested, doUrorod or oonv i oted; but on tha oolltrary, was klllsd while roslatlng arrest. 

whether or 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 l ooond quastlan 

must k deteminod has no pm1101 ia the re- 
Xonomblo a. Lao OWenloL - PagO 4 

ported oases, and yet we think gno odat oxl8ts 

for a r ule wh lo 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 uao roema that the r sons 

* ullty 0s the audd wo~o all kiuod w 

a & 

r lb ntlng arrort. The p&roono ocmpoalng thapoaae 

wue authorized to make an arrest of the murdererae ROT. Laws, I 8964. The taking of the Urea 

of the murderers, whllo realoting arrest by roroe 

of arm8, was aleo 

i 

urtliiablb, 

6396, 6397, X6 

Rot, IAWS, II 

sa d In the notes to the oaae of 

Xlklne vD .iiiipandotte County, auprar ‘In oonstruing rewards ofm?ed for arrest and corn--lotion, 

the oourts have been lnoUned tt look dth diatator on a too teohnleal 5nterpretatAoz 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 

certain ocrvloe may presorlbe any tQrzs he map 

wish, but, as erperlenoe h&a ahcm that many 

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 Xlklna ve ;iyendotto Gounty, 

held that l ubat&ntlaL oompliano~ with the terms 

la auffiolent, espeol&Uy where a literal ocmpllanoo would be lmposslble.* 

‘The 3Upm CO& Of COmOOtiOUt in RO 

Xelly, 39 Cohn* 159, held: ‘That the atatuta 

ought to reoelre an ec,ultabl&, not a atrlot 

or toohniool, oo~~truotlon, and thit, so construed tht: petltlonzr waa Salrip within Its 

provl&na* and e:;tltled to the reward. 

“In hsakell v. Davldmn, 91 Yie, 4S, 42 

I,. R. A. 155, 64 AJi. St. Rep. 954, 40 rt1. 

330, It uaa held: ‘An offer 0s a reward for 

&the arrest aad ooxvaotlon& of en offender o&hnot be taken literally.* 
Honorablr ii. Loo O'DanIOl - Pa@ 5 

-0 O&SO .0r bt0s04 V* sta0, x83 nr. 

492 56 3. iv. 985, Is anala 

at L. It was thoroin ho1 r I ‘Plaintiff 

us to tho on0 

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

llrory to tho 

arrost ho mun a 

allsr, thowh in w tho 

06 ths fueltlro 10 @at ho 

~~o~foro ho oould be dollvorod to tho 

& 

'3 the oase at bar the arrest and aonr 

dd.0n 0r tho parsons r0r whoa the reward 

was offorod was rondorod i~possIblo by roaaon 

or thoIr being kiLlod whllo rosIstIng arrost. 

'Tholr killing, in the manner dotaIlo4 In tho 

hgrood statemoat of raots, was justlrlablo, 

and o ratod as a lawful oxauso for non0 ompl cll 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 entitled to rooovor.~ 

ire aonour In the reasoning and oonolusion of the 

Xeva4a aqmxne Court. It Is our opinion that Lr, Rlohardson has oorreotly sunmarlzed the mttor in his letter of 

olaim, a8 r0u0w8: 

"III VieN Of the fOregOi~ r~iat8 Wo fOei 

that we have saved the State of Texas quit0 a sum 

of money In oxoess of your roward, 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 reoelvo the 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