I

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Ffonorab3.b

3. H. arlffln County Attoamy Young county Graham, Toxaw
Dear Sir;

the 

### shedif udder ?qection J of; Artlole 1040 COP 

### is not a 

### re0 or 

### xtrrbe BIL a0949 not have to be ~~~~~~t~~~~~~ ,you OpWon above

lease *ime nekhiah or these authorities ~~u.l be.fo~$n&. In 80 far as. I have bean able to‘det&aine ybur @pinionhaa never been, by youl' dspakgman~, m&iridd or reverse&n

\ / ,/' w& &f&on No. 

### o-2972was writtenwe aarefullg aonsideredthss~xoagee of Harris County v. **Hammond** et al., 

### 203 8. ;q. 

### 445; Blnford v. Harris County, 261 8. ?I.

### 535; Nolan County v. Yarbrough,

### 34 5. ‘:f. (2) 

### 302, and the authorities cited therein and reaognizedthat these casesheld, anon& other things, that the fifteen cent8 p~OVid0d iOF under seation 1 or Mticle 1040,Vernon's AnnotatedCode of Crlninal Procedure,did not oonstltutea fee of ofiioe that had to be aooounted ror as suoh. i!owever, in view of Artiole 3891,HonorableE. H. **Griffin,** Page 2

Vernon’8 AnnotatedCivil **Statutee, as**  amended sinae the opfnions in these aaaoa were rendered,whiah providesin part:

“.
. . . -The compensation, llniitationa

end maximuma &rein fixed ahall also apply to all lees and oompensatlon

whatsoever oollaotsd**by** said oriioer8 in their ofriolaloapaaitp, whether accountable as fees of ofrioe nnder the present law, and any law, general **or** speofal, to the oontrary is hereby expresslyrepealed. The Only kind and charaoteror oolapensatfon exempt from the provisions of this Aot shall be **rewards** receivedby Sheriffs for apprehensionof orimlnalsor fugitives from **juatioe** and for the reoovery of stolen property,and moneye reoelvedby County Judges and Justloes or the Poaoe ror performingmarriage oeremonies,whioh sum shall not be aooountablefor and not required to **be** reported as feea of office.*
‘xe wero of the opinion that the above **quoted** terms **of** this **statute** (Artlole3891, supra)were ..knolusive to the extent that in order for fees to be exempt thereunder,thq must be .speOlfiOally exaluded. (See the oaaea or I?iohole v. GalvestonCounty Supreme Court,

46 9. 3. 49). 228 3. 71.547 tnd Ellie County T. Thoapaon, As later stated-inthe aase of Taylor et al. 0. BrowatoP Couatp, l44 5. W. (21 314, It was our oplnlon that *the change in the staute **rather** broadens t&n.restrlots what are to be determinedotflaialfee& **Art** lole 3891, I1.

S. 1925, Vernon'sAnnotatedCivil Statutes,**Art** lale 3891". (Sate the aaae or Nueaea County v* Curington et al., 162 S. W. 687). However on February 16, 1942, artier our opinionNo. G-2972was written, the Court or Citil **Appeals** or Texan, at Amarillo, in the o&se of %WUniiep v. Callingsworth,Countyet al., 159 S. t?. (2) 234, expresslyheld that the ~lowanaos to sheriffsror sare keeping or prisonersunder Section 1 of Artlolo 1040, Vernon*a AnnotatedCode oftCrlminal PNoeanre, do nat oonstitutefees or offloebut are **mere** perquisitesor orriae **ror** which the sheriff is aocountable

### to no one. It will be noted that this oase furtherholds that profit8made under Seation 2 Of Artid@ loids sUPI%, relating to the allowanoea to a sherirr **for** the support and mintenMOe of prisonersshould be reported a8 “fees of ofiioe*..

Honorable E. H. Griffin, Page 3

Te think the opinion of the oourt in XooXfuley v. Collingeworth County et al., supra, should be followed until the Supreme Court holds to the costrsry. Thererore, our opinion Xo. O-2972 ie expressly overruled and withdrawn,

This opinion is to be oonstruad as applyinq only to those counties wherein the county offioials are oompensated on a ree basis.

&sting tnat the roregoing fully enswers your inquiry, we sre **Yours** very truly

AX: mp $rdell Yilliams .$sslstant