The Attorney General of Texas 

November 30, 1977 

Honorable Joe Resweber 

County Attorney 

Harris County Courthouse 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Opinion No. H-1099 

Re: Are Harris County 

justices of the peace 

required to publish semi; 

Dear Mr. Resweber: annual status reports? 

your office has asked if justices of the peace in Harris 

County are required by section 6 of article 1200ff, V.T.C.Sa, 

Acts 1977, 65th Leg., ch. 725, at 1798, to publish semiannual status reports of the revenues and activities of their 

courts. Section 6 of that statute reads in part: 

(Emphasis added). The remainder of the section provides the 

manner in which such reports are to be printed and the deEach municipal court, corporation court, 

and justice court in the state shall publish during the first week of January and 

the first week of June of each year in a 

newspaper of general circulation in the 

county in which each such court sits a 

report of its revenues and activities for 

the six-month period immediately preceding 

the date of the report and schedule of its 

established fines payable in cases that 

are disposed of without hearings. 

tails of the information they are to contain. 

The language of the section is clear. It refers to all 

justice courts in the state, including those of Harris County. 

However, the title of the bill enacting the statute reads: 

An Act relating to the establishment, 

jurisdiction, and operation of municipal 

courts of record in the city of Fort 

Worth, and providing for municipal 

judges and other personnel of the courts; 

prescribing the appeals from a municipal 

court of record; conforming the juris- - 

diction of other courts to the municipal 

court of record. 

13. 4509 
Iionorable Joe Resweber - Page 2 (H-1099) 

(Emphasis added). Article 3, section 35 of the Texas Constitution specifies that no bill, other than general appropriations 

bills, "shall contain more than one subject, which shall be 

expressed in its title." (Emphasis added). 

The history of this legislation shows that the original 

bill passed by the House of Representatives late in the regular 

session of the 65th Legislature was in fact confined to the 

establishment and operation of municipal courts for the City 

of Ft. Worth, and the first section of the enactment remains 

so limited. The Senate Committee to which the Rouse-passed 

bill was referred on May 26th amended it,on May 27th to include 

the language now found in section 6 of the statute. The changed 

bill was passed by the Senate on the same day. On the next day, 

May 28th, the House concurred in the Senate amendments. The 

title of the bill was never revised to reflect the Senate 

changes. 

The Texas Supreme Court has reiterated that the caption 

of an act should be liberally construed to uphold its validity; 

but it has also many times observed that the purpose of article 

3, section 35 of the Constitution is to give notice to both the 

Legislature and the people of the subject matter of the proposed 

law, thereby preventing the passage of a law upon one subject 

under the auise of a title which exoresses another. See 

C. Hayman Construction Co. v. American Indemnity Co.,411 

S.W.Zd 564 (Tex. 1971); Fletcher v. State, 439 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 

1969). See also Whaley v. State, 496 S.W.Zd 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1973). If bv its title the bill appears to affect only the 

residents of-particularly designated localities, while-the provisions in the body of the bill affect other localities or 

territory, then the title is misleading and unconstitutional 

insofar as it affects the unnamed places. Abernathy County 

Line Consol. Ind. Sch. Dist. v. New Deal Rural High Sch. Dist. 

NO. 3 17 s 2d 446 ( 

~'w.o5m.i~'Sutherla~?;. 

Civ. App. -- Amarillo 1943 , writ 

Board of Trustees, 261 S.W. 489 

(Tex. Civ. App. -- San Antonio 1924, writ ref'd). Se~e Fletcher 

'inance 

LPP. -- Austin 19651, 

v. State, 439‘S.W.Zd 656 (Tex. 1969); Falkner v. AlEd 

Co. of Bay City, 394 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Civ. I-- 

writref' 'd n.r.e., 397 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1966); 53 Tex. Jur. 2d, 

Statutes 69 57 - 59. 

In our opinion, section 6 of article 1200ff, V.T.C.S., 

will be held by the courts to be unconstitutional insofar as it 

purports to affect justices of the peace in Harris County: 

the title of the bill which enacted it gave no hint that it 

would apply to any area other than the city of Fort Worth. See 

Weeks v. State, 521 S.W.Zd 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). cf. 7 

V.T.C.S. arts. 1200dd; 1200ee. 

p. 4510 
Honorable Joe Resweber - Page 3 (H-1099) 

SUMMARY 

Harris County justices of the peace are 

not required by section 6 of article 

1200ff, V.T.C.S., to publish semi-annual 

status reports because the caption of 

the bill which enacted the statute indicated it would apply only to the city of 

Fort Worth. 

_ Very truly yours, 

M&P 

' ! Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: d 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4511