### T~SATTOMNEY GENERAL o,~T~xms Auwrx~ II.TEXAH PRICEDANIEL ATTORNEY GNERAL October 

### 3,1950
Hon. Will R. Wilson, Jr. Opinion Ro. V-1111 Mstrict Attorney Dallas 2, Texas Re: Legality of review by the CountyAuditor and the Commissioners' Court of expense accounts for visiting district judges which have been approved by the Presiding Judge of the Administrative Dear Sir: Mstrlct.

Youhave presented the following questions relative to payment of expense accounts of visiting district judges: "1. Is such an expense aocount subject to audit and/or review by: "a

. ::;* Thepresiding judge of the district; CountyAuditor; a Conmt8sioners1 Court?
“2. If the~.account is subject to review by the presiding judge of the judicial dis-~ trlct, mayhe refuse approval if, in Ns oplnIon, the account does not represent actual expenses or a close approximation thereof? 

### "3. If the account is subject to review by the audltor, mayhe refuse approval for payment If, in his opinion, the account does not represent actual expenses? "4. If the account Is subject to review by the Cammissioners' Court, maythe'court refuse approval for payment If, In it8 opinion, the account does not represent actual expenses or a reasonable approximation thereof? (el.&?'with or without review

Is the presiding ju7e'8 approval final andnot subject to further audit or review?. .

Hon. Will R. Wilson, Jr,, page 2 (V-1111)

“6. If the expense account i8 subject to review by the CountyAuditor, is he authorized to demandreceipted invoices for hotel bills?” Article 1660, V.C.S., provides:

“All claims, bills andaccounts against the county must be filed In ample time for the audltor to examine andapprove samebefore the meetings of the coannlssioners court. I?o-claim, bill or account shall be allowed or paid until it ha8been examined andapproved by the county auditor. Theauditor Shall examine the Sameand 8tSZIp hi8 QprOVal thereon. If he deem8it necessary, all such accounts, bill, or claims mustbe verlf++e$~ys~davit touching the correctness

. Theauditor is hereby authorized to administer oaths for the purpose8 of this law.” Thepertinent part of Article 2351, V.C.S., is as follows:

“Each COmmi88iOll'3l?8 COUl't Shall:

"

. . .

“lo. Audit and settle all accounts ,agalnst the county and direct their payment

.” These are general statutes which require anaudit andapproval of claims against the county by the audltar and commissioners’ court before they maybe paid.

However, Section 10of Article 2OOa,V.C.S., provides :

“Whenthe district judges are assigned under the provisions of this Act to districts other than their owndistrict andout of their owncounties, the shall In addition to all other compensa-Ion permitted or authorized by law, receive their actual expenses in going to andreturni their several assignments, andtheir ac ual”%.vlng expenses while in the

Y- performance of their duties under assignments,Ron. Will R. Wilson, Jr,, page 3 (V--1111)

Ed. which expenses shall be pafd out of the Seneral Fundof the county In which their dUtie8 under assignments are performed, uvon accounts certified andapproved by the &?eSidim Judge f the Administratfve Mstrict." (Emphasis idaed.) 1943), In 2Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3rd 541-543,it iS Stated: "General and special acts maybe in materia. v

If so, they should be construed ogether Whereone statute 'deals with a subject in general terms, andanother deals with a part of the sameSubject in amore detailed way, the two should be harmonized if possible; but if there is any confl.zLct, the latter will prevail, regardless of whether it was passed prior to the general statute, unless it appears that t& legislature intended to makethe general act controlling."
S.W.2d 1063,-

In Townse;d2;*,Terrell &llg Texo 463,467,16

e coapu Safdz

” eIt 18 only where a&S are so inconsistent as to be irreconei.lable that a repeal by Implication will be indulged. If there exists such conflict, then there is a presmption of the intention to repeal all laws and parts of laws in conflictT~~h~~he clear intentfon of the last act. necessarfly true where both acts cannot sta.nd,as valfd enactments. "Thfs rule of construction has found frequent andapt fllustratfon where one of the SUppoSedly ,conflfctfng Statutes wasgeneral fn its term8 andthe other specific. In such a case it is universally held that the speaific statute more clearly evidences the lntentfon of the Legislature than the general one, andtherefore that it will control. TVE;;;," case both statute8 are permitted

- the general one applicable to all cases except the particular one embraced in the specific statute. Ds en Applying the prfnciple announced in the aboveHon. Will R. Wilson, Jr., page 4 (V-1111)

cases to the Instant case, the Legislature did not intend that the approval of the claims of the district judges whohave been assigned to try cases In districts other than their ownand out of their owncounties under the provisions of Article 200a, V.C.S., should be governed by the provisions of Articles 1660 or 2351, V.C.S. Generallyclaims to be paid by the county must hav;ttmheapproval of the coannlssloners' court and county

. However, Section 10of Article 200a sets out speclflcally the prerequisites for payment of expense account8 for visiting dlstrlct judges. Underthese proVi810nS the only requirement is that such accounts be "certified andapproved by the Presiding Judge of the AdminiSt~tiVe MStriOt ." There 18noprovision in Artiole 2OCato indicate that Its provisions are to be cumulative of Articles 1660and 2351. Onthe contrary, it Is our opinion that the Legislature intended to substltute the approval of the presiding judge in lieu of that of the c.onrmieslonersl court and county auditor.

Youare therefore advised that such expense accounts are subject to audit andreview by the presiding judge of the administrative district only.

In answer to your second question, it is our opinion that It la the duty of a presiding judge to refuse to approve an expense account of the ~district judge if in hi8 0piniOn the aCCOUIIt does not represent aCtUa1 expenses. In view of the above answers, wedonot deem that a discussion of questions three andfour is necesSWY. In regard to your fifth and sixth questions, such expense account8 are subject to audit bythe county auditor froma "bookkeeplngn standpoint. However, thl8 IS not to be construed 80as to authorlze a county auditor to review the legality of Items of expenditure contained therein whenoertified and approved by a presiding judge of the administratIve district.Eon. WillR. Wilson, Jr*, page 

### 5 (V-1111)

Expense accounts of ViSitilIg distriot 8udges he are subject to audit andreview by presiding judge of the admInistratIve dl8trlct only. Art. 2OOa,Sec. 10, V.C.S. Thepresiding judge should refuseto approve an expense account of 5 district judge if in his opinion the account does not represent actual expenses. APPROVE= " J. C. Davis, Jr+ County Affairs Division Charles D. Mathews First Assistant BA:lllW Yours very truly, PRICEIkUQIEL Attorney General

I : f ,/I,,'

.

. By ,-;f ~~;.f

fC:-I: lw Bruce Allen Assistant