Eoaorabla Woodrow 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, requartlry aa opinion of tM# drpartmsnt on the above stated questlon reads in 

part as followsr 

*On August llth 194l in oonpllanor with a 

petition bearing the required number or signaturos, Petitioning the Oommiaeionarr court OS 

Mo county, tc otier an oleotlon in Yustioo 

Preolnc~ No. 1 for the prohibit$oa of 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 oanvaaeing tbr returnsof the aaid elaotion deolared 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 eleotioa tra8 dealamd to be void, beoause or forrr Oi Sallot, is the Daokee of the 

D&&riot Court, the Court did not ‘order the 

proper oftlosr to 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 satlrely new petition 

arrklng for an elaotlon In the eaid Juetios Prs- 

. . 

r 
545 

Eonorabls Woodrw Curtis, Page 9 

'oinot No. 1 on the issue of prohibiting ths 

sale oi boar. The Territory being 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 itwarb mandatory 

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 should hold a Speolal term 

or court and oorreot his judgment. 

Two oi the members ot the Court took the 

Ii 

osltion', that 04 an eatirely new petition had 

oen riled the Commissioners Court oould disregard all that had happened In the past, the 

ssma ns if no eleotlon had been held, and order 

the eleotlon 'under the new petition.* 

Artiole 666-4&x, Verqon’s Aanotatsd Penal Code, segardlng ths oontest o? looal option eleotlons held pursuant to 

the 

ts 

rovisiona of the Texas Uquor Control AOt, speolflcelly 

~0 a04 in part: 

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

the DiBtriOt CWTt of the oounty.in 

hare original and sx0ll4ito &rls~lotfon of 

all suits to oontest such eleotion, and the 

prooeedlngs In such oontest shall be oonduated. 

in the sase manner, as now govern the oontest 

of any 6oaeral eleotioa,and said oourt shall 

. 

have jurlsdiotion to try and determine all matters oonnooted with said eleotion, lnoludlng 

the petition of suoh eleotion and all prweedlags and orders relating thsretd, smbraoing 

final oouat and deolaratlon and publ.ioation.ot 

the rseult putting looal option into effect, 

and It shall have authority to determine QUOStions relatlnq to the legality and validity of 

said eleotion, and to detemine whether by the 

aotlon or want of aotlon on the past of the 

otlioera to Mmm was entrusted the 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 evidence that suoh irregularities exlsted 

. 

in brlnhing about said eleo~lon or In holding i 

stxae, as to render the true result of the eleOtion impossible to 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 eleotfon to 

be held, anQ shall cause a oertifled oopy of 

ouch judgment and 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 eleotlon be be held, and shall cause 

a aertifiad copy of such jud~ent end order of tho court fo’be 

dellyemd to ouoh offioor upon whom 14 devolved by law the 

duty of ordering such election. . . 

A soot dlffioult question preeonted by poor 1nqsirp.e 

is, whothor or not the dietriot oourt has the 10,;al authmlty 

..L:L 

I, 

and $ower to amend or oorreot his ronaer j-ant which omit-‘ 

ted the order oi the :roper officer to order another eleotion / 

to be held 44 provided by Article 666-4oa, eupra. 

'lie uote from the case of Flanne 

106 9. 3. (2d'f 897 (writ of 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, *The power of a owrt to oorreot lnadvertent juQneat entries or irregularltle4 .*+f * 14 

derived from the oonstltutloa which creates the oourt,' 

and zre not dependent upon 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 

oourt may coke othar orders aodinooneietea~ 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 

adlotion over suoh persons 

or property my be entir nslst~tniththe 

lntegrlty or the final j t sod therefore 

not affeoted by the rule forbids a ohan 

In the judgment after 0x7 on of the t&r& 

certainly a oourt has inhereat authority at any 
Honorable WoOdrOW 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 t3upmme Court as , 

early a8 Cbaabers I. Eodges, S Tex. 517 529, 

*This 1imItation upon the authority of the 

0”“s: will not pmvent the oorrootlon of olerloal e&ore or teistakes, or defeota of Sona, or 

the addlflon of such olause as say be neoessary 

to oarry out the judgment of the oourt.t 

“In Trasmell T* Trammall, 25 Tax. Suppm 

261, the Supreme Court says: ‘The oourt say, 

a$ter the term, amend its raoords and jud@nentr 

80 far as to oorreot msmly olorloal errors or 

ml4t4k4s or by adding suoh omitted olause in 

the rend&ion o? the Judgment as may be neoessary 

to giveIt etfeot, when th.ere 14 anything In the 

judgxent by whIoh to tunand.t 

. 

this judment 14 on Its faoe indefinite, 

unoertain, and ambiguous. 

Wee, also, Coleman Y* Zapp, 105 TaxI a 691, 

161 s. II. 1040~ Gerlaoh Meraantlle Co. Yb Eu&osFiorth-Au&arson Co. (Tar. Cl+. App.$ 189 21 X. 

s . 

. - 

*‘A judment say properly be wdeadod 40 as 

to relieYe It of.ambIguIty~ 

etlnoorreot and erronsous reoltals may be 

oorreoted, omitted reoltals SupplIod, and iffpropsr 

reoitals stricken out, 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 putpoass of thie opinion, we L!Wt a44uw that 

the distrlot oourt intended and did ?eriors th0 duty Wxmed 

upon him by the above mentioned attatuts, and that the &Wnent 

and order aotually rendemd by the oourt 0omp1Ied with the 

provisions of the said Artlole 6664Oa, although the JudGnent 
Ronorable Woodrow Curtis, Page 5 

a.56 order a8 aatually writton did not contain such provision. 

If *hia be true; it 10 our opinion thct the dlstrlat oourt le 

authorized to oorrrot the Mgment aa aotually writtsn to the 

eirtsnt that It uill oonionn with the judgnant and order cotually rendered. IX thfa be dono, the Comaf:sionerci* Court must 

order t&o sleotlon IB oanplfuuo~ with the order OS the aourt, 

(Soo the oaae OS fhith v. Blunt, lS7 9. W. (Sd) SM.) Rowaver, 

On the other hand, ii the oourt had no intention cind tha judgrMnt and order or tha oourt did not ooxply With the _oro?lsloua 

ct Artiola 665~4Cu, mpra, the jud@nent of the oourt cannot 

now be oorreoted to aonfoorn with *Aa provisions of said statute. 

Apparently there was 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 WJ above 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 inwiry, w4 ar4 

fOUr4j4ry truly 

Ardell Xlll.lau~e 

A(Lseletarrt 

Am00