# TheAttorney General ofTexas

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 inHarris County are required by section 6of 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 6of that statute reads inpart:

(Emphasis added). The remainder of the section provides the
manner inwhich such reports are tobe printed and the deEachmunicipal court, corporation court, and justice court in the state shall publish during the firstweek of January and the firstweek of June of each year ina newspaper of general circulation in the county inwhich 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 ofwithout hearings.

tails of the information they are to contain.

The language of the section isclear. It refers to all justice courts inthe state, including those of Harris County. However, the title of thebill enacting the statute reads:

An Act relating to the establishment, jurisdiction, and operation ofmunicipal courts of record in the city of Fort Worth, and providing formunicipal judges and other personnel of the courts; prescribing the appeals from amunicipal court of record; conforming the juris- - diction of other courts to themunicipal court of record.

13. 4509IionorableJoe Resweber - Page 2 (H-1099)

(Emphasis added). Article 3, section 35 of theTexas Constitution specifies that no bill, other than general appropriations bills, "shall contain more thanone subject, which shall be expressed in its title." (Emphasisadded).

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 ofmunicipal courts for the City of Ft. Worth, and the first section of the enactment remains so limited. The Senate Committee towhich theRouse-passed bill was referred on May 26th amended it,on May 27th to include the language now found in section 6of the statute. The changed bill was passed by the Senate on the same day. On the next day, May 28th, theHouse concurred in the Senate amendments. The title of thebill was never revised to reflect the Senate changes.

The Texas Supreme Court has reiterated that the caption of an act shouldbe liberally construed to uphold its validity; but it has alsomany times observed that thepurpose of article 3, section 35of the Constitution is to give notice toboth the Legislature and the people of the subject matter of theproposed 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, 439S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1969). See also Whaley v. State, 496 S.W.Zd 109 (Tex.Crim. App. 1973). Ifbv its title the bill appears to affect only the residents of-particularly designated localities, while-the provisions in thebody of the bill affect other localities or territory, then the title ismisleading and unconstitutional insofar as itaffects the unnamed places. Abernathy County Line Consol. Ind. Sch. Dist. v.New Deal RuralHigh 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. -- SanAntonio 1924, writ ref'd). Se~eFletcher '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--

'dn.r.e., 397 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1966); 53Tex. Jur. 2d, writref' Statutes 69 57 - 59.

In our opinion, section 6of article 1200ff,V.T.C.S., will be heldby the courts tobe unconstitutional insofar as it purports toaffect justices of the peace inHarris County: the title of the bill which enacted it gave nohint that it would apply to any area other than the city ofFort Worth. See Weeks v. State, 521 S.W.Zd 858 (Tex.Crim. App. 1975). cf. 7 V.T.C.S. arts. 1200dd; 1200ee.

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

SUMMARY
Harris County justices of the peace are not required by section 6of article 1200ff, V.T.C.S., to publish semi-annual status reports because the caption of the bill which enacted the statute indicated itwould apply only to the city of Fort Worth.

_ Very truly yours, 

# M&P

' !Attorney General of Texas

APPROVED: d

Opinion Committee jst

p. 4511