OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

, 

AUSTIN 

Ronorablo W. A. Morrison 

Criminal District Attorney 

Milam County 

Cameron, Texas 

Dear Slrl 

ill Fn the oheok 

and this ia done, 

0 to personal propnoxwd, vhers does 

from a saarch of the authorSims vs,,tho State, 13 S.W. 

11 

vs. 

S. W. 

the 

2d 

State, 

254; and 

57 S.W

9. 

brings 

W. 26 

m 

276; 

to 

and 

(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, and not Xn the oounty in vhioh the 

check uas written. " 

lrfc havo further lnforzzt$on from you to ,tho off%ct that 

the pey,-son y30 gave the chock was D filling ,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. 

We quote 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 soiling an article 

or commodity, the venue is ordinarily in the 

oounty uhore delivery vas made, although payment therofor had previously been mede In 

another county, or the terms of the sale 

agreed upon plsevhere. And where the offense 

ie consummated by 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 made ln Gastland County but the property 

I:: iLovn county 

orse) we.9 delivered to and was acquired by tho appellant 

. We quota 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 dcf enfdant. ” 

The same principle 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 by you, follows and cites the Sims and Dochard 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 common carrier bus line for delivery 

to Robertson. Robertson trao tried and convicted in Tarrant 
I“ ‘

- 

Honorable V. A. EI3rrison, Pago 3 

county. The Texas Court of Crininal. Appoala rcvcrsed the conviction and held 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 poss3soion of 

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 JUL 17, 1041 

.A& 

ATTORNEY GBERAL OF !iZXAS 

HJFrRS