EoaorablaWoodrow Curtir

County **Attorney** Prio county Paareall,Tore8 Dear Sir; Opinion Nor 0-+l20 Roa Wlsr the faota #et forth CM

. the **ad88i0nerd** Court order the local Option slaotlon 

### under the neypetition?
Yocr letter 0fOotobar 14, 1941, requartlryaa opinion of tM# drpartmsnton the above stated questlonreads in part as followsr

*On August llth 194l in oonpllanor with a petitionbearing the requirednumber or signaturos,Petitioningthe Oommiaeionarr court OS Mo county, tc otier an oleotlon in Yustioo Preolnc~No. 1 for the prohibit$oaof the oala ot Beer, the Conmisrlonora Court oi Prio **County** or&red a Local Option SlsOtlon to be bald in eald **Justlc9 Prsoinot**  **Ro.** 1 of Prlo County on **August** 50th lOaL, the issue **subdttad** being the le#Uzing the sale or Beer, on Beptamber lsth 194l, the aala court in oanvaaeingtbr returnsof the aaid elaotiondeolared the re8ult to be 2 votes agaimt the aale of Beor,
***At** a 8peeial Tana oi the Dlrtriot court ot the Blat ;ludiaial Dlotrlot, on Ootobar 8th 1941, said eleotioatra8 dealamd to be void, beoause or forrr

Oi Sallot, is the Daokee of the D&&riot Court, the Court did not ‘order the proper oftlosrto order another oleotion to be held, ttto’

@a prorfded in &tiols 6604Oa Penal Code.
“On Ootobar iSth 1941, them was riled and &bsented to the Court an satlrelynew petition arrklng

for an elaotlon In the eaid Juetios Prs-

.. r

## 545

EonorablsWoodrw Curtis,Page 9

'oinot No. 1 on the issueof **prohibiting** ths sale oi boar. The Territorybeing tba sama as that aovsmd br the first petition. *On ihe hearing or the new petition **Ootobsr** 13th 1941, soms of ths mambers oi the Court took the position that itwarbmandatory on the Dlsttrlot Court to order the proper ofrioers to ardor another eleotlon,eto., as provided in Art. 666408 **Penal** Oode, **and** that the Dirtriot Judge shouldhold a Speolal term or court and oorreothis judgment.
Two oi the members ot the Court took the Ii osltion',

that 04 **an** eatirelynew petitionhad oen riled the Commissioners Court oould disregard all that had happened In the past, the ssma ns if no eleotlonhad been held, and order the eleotlon 'under the new petition.* Artiole 666-4&x,Verqon’sAanotatsdPenal Code, segardlng ths oontest o? looal option eleotlonsheld pursuant to thets rovisiona of the Texas Uquor Control AOt, speolflcelly ~0 a04 in part:

nhiohl~~h*&otIon has been hald uhish shall

the DiBtriOtCWTt of the oounty.in hare original and sx0ll4ito &rls~lotfon of all suits to oontestsuch eleotion,and the prooeedlngsIn such oontest shall be oonduated. in the sase manner, as now govern the oontest of any 6oaeral eleotioa,andsaid oourt shall . have jurlsdiotionto try and determineall matters oonnooted with said eleotion, **lnoludlng** the petition of suoh eleotionand all prweedlags and orders relating thsretd, smbraoing final oouat and deolaratlonand publ.ioation.ot the rseult putting looal option into effect, and It shall have authorityto determine QUOStions relatlnq to the legalityand validity of said eleotion,and to detemine whether by the aotlon or want of aotlon on the past of the otlioera to Mmm was entrustedthe oontrol ot such eleotlon,suoh a number ot legal voters were denied the privilege of voting, as had they been allowed to vote, might have materially chanced the result,and If it shall appear from tha evidencethat suoh irregularitiesexlsted . in brlnhingabout said eleo~lon or In holding i stxae, as to render the true result of the eleOtion impossibleto be arrived at, or very debt-flonorablo ~Zoodrow

Curtls, Pa&e‘

5

ful Of a4certalning,,the oourt shall cdjudgo **SUCK** oleotion to be Told, and shall order the prayer offleer to order another eleotfonto be held, anQ shall cause a oertifledoopy of ouch judgmentand order cf the oourt to bo delivered to suoh orfioer ugoton whau 14 devolved by law the Uuty of ordering suoh oleotlon.

. . . 0

We think-thetths above raentioncd ~rsrlsion of Arti014 6664Oa, supr4, 14 manbtory atnl thst the oourt nhioh adJuae;ea euoh election to be void 14 required to **order** the prop= offioer to order another eleotlonbe be held, and shallcause a aertifiad copy of such jud~ent end order of tho court fo’be dellyemd to ouoh offioorupon whom **14** devolvedby law the duty of ordering such election.

. .

**A** soot dlffioultquestionpreeonted**by poor**  1nqsirp.e is, whothor or not the dietriot oourt has the 10,;al authmlty ..L:L

I, and $ower to amend or oorreothis ronaer j-ant which omit-‘ ted the order oi the :roper officer to order anothereleotion / to be held 44 providedby Article 666-4oa,eupra.

'lie uote 

### from the case of Flanne 106 9. 3. (2d'f

897 (writof error dismissed While it is the law,that the trial oourt may not, after the tera at wbioh the ludgment 7344 fendared,oorreot what is termed a judlalal error, *Thepower of a owrt to oorreot lnadvertent juQneat entries or irregularltle4 .*+f* 14 derived from the oonstltutloa which creates the oourt,' and zre not dependentupon legielatire.authority. 25 Tar. J.ur.

p. 530, par* 136r :

. . **Althou* juriodiotion over the subjeot matter and the parties 14~6eaera~y exhausted aftor final judgnent,yet, in a..proper 4484 the oourtmay coke othar ordersaodinooneietea~ with the ~djudlcetion~ Thus neoe44lty

### for proteatfis gersoca or property in the oontrol of the oourt may arise arter ju6 the erarcise of jur F enthss;been

pronounod, and adlotionover suoh persons or property my be entir nslst~tniththe lntegrltyor the final j t sod therefore not affeoted by the rule forbids a ohan In the judgmentafter 0x7 on of the t&r& certainlya oourt has inhereatauthorityat anyHonorableWoOdrOW Curtis,Pago 4

time to dlreot suoh prooess or make suoh ordare as may be neosssary to eeirf its @l@mmt into ereoutl0n.t 2S To% Jur. pa S31, para lS7. *Astor stating that the oourt aftor the tin3 14 olo4ed has no power to rerl4e or modify a judgment on the oierlts, the t3upmmeCourt as , early a8 **Cbaabers** I. Eodges, S Tex. 517 529, *This 1imItation

upon the **authority** of the 0”“s: will not pmvent the oorrootlonof olerloal e&ore or teistakes, or defeota of Sona, or the addlflon of such olauseas say be neoessary to oarry out the judgmentof the oourt.t
“In TrasmellT* Trammall,25 Tax. Suppm 261, the Supreme Court says: ‘The oourt say, a$ter the term, amend its raoordsand jud@nentr 80 far as to oorreotmsmly olorloalerrors or **ml4t4k4s** or by adding suoh omittedolause in the rend&ion o? the Judgmentas may be neoessary to giveIt etfeot, when th.ere **14** anything In the judgxentby whIoh to tunand.t

. **this judment**  **14** on Its faoe indefinite, unoertain,and ambiguous. Wee, also, ColemanY* Zapp, 105 TaxI a691, 161 s. II.1040~ GerlaohMeraantlleCo. Yb Eu&osFiorth-Au&arson Co. (Tar.Cl+. App.$ 189 21 X. s .

. - *‘ A judment say properlybe wdeadod **40 as**  to relieYe It of.ambIguIty~ etlnoorreot

and erronsousreoltals may be oorreoted, omitted reoltals SupplIod,and iffpropsr reoitals strickenout, by tmendment.t S4 00 J. pm 236. ***sea,** also, Freeman on JuQments, ~01. 1, p, 274, per, 142; Blaok on JudgPents,~01. 1, p. 178, par. 157.”
?or the putpoassof thie opinion,we L!Wt a44uw that the distrlot oourt intendedand did ?eriors th0 duty Wxmed upon him by the above mentionedattatuts, and that the &Wnent and order aotually rendemd by the oourt 0omp1Iedwith the provisions of the said Artlole 6664Oa, although the JudGnentRonorableWoodrow Curtis, Page 5

a.56 order a8 aatuallywritton did not contain **such** provision. If *hia be true; it 10 our opinion thct the dlstrlatoourt le authorizedto oorrrot the Mgment aa aotuallywrittsn to the eirtsnt

that It uill oonionnwith the judgnantand order cotually rendered. IX thfa be dono, the Comaf:sionerci* Court must order t&o sleotlon IB oanplfuuo~with the order OSthe aourt, (Soo the oaae OS fhith v. Blunt, lS7 9. W. (Sd) SM.) Rowaver, On the other hand, ii the oourt had no intention cindtha judgrMnt and order or tha oourt did not ooxplyWith the _oro?lsloua ct Artiola 665~4Cu, mpra, the jud@nentof the oourt cannot now be oorreotedto aonfoorn with *Aa provisions of said statute. Apparently therewas no agpsal from the Jude;lsnt ot the Ulstriot **oourt** dn¶ths tom OS the oourt at tiioh auoh Jurlgment mw rendered .harr teminated. Ii the **jUdtp45t and**  **order** of the court oaunot be ainaudea or oorraotsd WJabove mentioned and the Judaent or the mxrt holdiq the **414OtiO5** void IS final, It ia our opinion thst the Comiseioners~ Court oan legally order an el~otlon In conplfallor with the new ,oetition prssented to the Court.

mting that the **for413oia;:** fully ausweril your **in** wiry, **w4** ar4 **fOUr4j4ry truly** 

Ardell Xlll.lau~e

**A(Lseletarrt**
**Am00**