OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS

, AUSTIN

Ronorablo W.A. Morrison Criminal District Attorney Milam County Cameron, Texas Dear Slrl

ill Fnthe oheok and this ia done, 0 to personal propnoxwd, vhers does
from a saarch of the authorSims vs,,tho State, 13 S.W. vs. the State, 

# 57 

# S.W.

11 S. W. 2d 254; and 9. W. 26 

### 276;

# and

brings m to (I. of Saiindlins lies in th& county where the 

### choc‘ x 1.0 actually dollvorod to the ecll.or and title to the Property passes, andnot Xnthe oounty in vhioh the check uas written. " lrfchavo further lnforzzt$on from you to ,tho off%ct 

### that the pey,-sony30 gave the chock was Dfilling ,stntion oporntor in .

“0 ~~yy”y,c.l,..*

.. -.. a- --..--.-..a-. - .-. .,

ilonorable W. A. Morrison, Page 2

A county vho had authorized hfs employee and agent to purchase gasoline for him from the complaining witness, a refinery owner of B county, and authorized his employee to fill in the amount of the check. The check was givon for the gasoline in B county and the gasoline was delivered in B county.

Wequote from 12 Texas Jurisprudence, pego 444, as follotrs:

‘The place where a crime is consummated is often, in contemplation of lav, the place whore %t,Is committed. 

### For example, vhere the offense consists In 

### soilingan article or commodity, the venue is ordinarily in the oounty uhore delivery vas made, although payment therofor had previously been medeIn another county, or the terms of the sale agreed uponplsevhere. Andwhere the offense ie consummatedby purchasing and receiving an article, the venue in ordinarily in the county ln which the artlole was purchased and dcllvered. 0 * *,‘I In the cese of Sims VS. State, I.3 S. W. 653, cited by‘you, appellant Sims was charged with sirlndllng; the false representations trere madeln Gastland County but the 

### property I:: iLovn county orse) we.9delivered to andwas acquired by tho appellant

. 

### Wequota from the court’s opinion ns follovsl

“It is tho acquisition of tho property that completes the offense. In this case, no offense vas oommitted in Zastland County, becnum the horse was not there acquired by tho dcfenfdant.” The sameprinciple of law is announced in tho case of becbmd v. ‘Stato, 57 5. W, 813, cited by you.

The case of Robertson v. State, 132 5. II. (2d) 276, cited byyou, follows and cites the 

### Sims andDochard cases. In the Robertson case the appellant Robertson in Tarrant County, Texas telephoned fraudulent reprosontations to the prosecuting vitncss In Harris County, Toxas, Mere the prosecuting vitnoss. in rollance on the fraudulent reprosentatlono delivered some rubber floor matting to a commoncarrier bus line for delivery to Robertson. Robertson 

### trao tried and convicted in Tarrant

# I“‘-
Honorable V. A. EI3rrison, Pago 3



### county. TheTexas Court 

### ofCrininal. Appoala rcvcrsed the conviction andheld that venue Vas in 

### Harris County vhare the delivery of the floor mhi;tIng 

### VV&S made since ths proparty vas transforrod to Robertson by delivery into the 

### poss3soionof ths carrier.

It is our opinion that the venue of th'e offonse 1s in B county vhero tho eaoollue was delivered. Very truly yours
A -,m JUL17, 1041
.A& ATTORNEY GBERALOF!iZXAS

HJFrRS