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 County Auditor 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. 

You have 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 . 

::;* 

The presiding judge of the district; 

County Auditor; 

a Conmt8sioners1 Court? 

“2. If the~.account is subject to review 

by the presiding judge of the judicial dis-~ 

trlct, may he 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, may he 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, may the'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 ju 

7 

e'8 approval 

final and not 

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 County Auditor, is he authorized to demand receipted invoices for 

hotel bills?” 

Article 1660, V.C .S., provides: 

“All claims, bills and accounts against 

the county must be filed In ample time for 

the audltor to examine and approve same before the meetings of the coannlssioners court. 

I?o -claim, bill or account shall be allowed 

or paid until it ha8 been examined and approved by the county auditor. The auditor 

Shall examine the Same and 8tSZIp hi8 QprOVal thereon. If he deem8 it necessary, all 

such accounts, bill, or claims must be verlf++e$~ys~davit touching the correctness 

. The auditor is hereby authorized to administer oaths for the purpose8 of 

this law. ” 

The pertinent 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 an audit and approval of claims against the county by the audltar and commissioners’ court before they may be paid. 

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

provides : 

“When the district judges are assigned 

under the provisions of this Act to districts 

other than their own district and out of their 

own counties, the shall In addition to all 

other compensa - Ion permitted or authorized by 

law, receive their actual expenses in going to 

and returni their several assignments, 

and their ac Y- ual”%.vlng expenses while in the 

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 Fund of the county In which their dUtie8 under assignments are performed, uvon accounts 

certified and approved by the &?eSidim Judge 

f the Administratfve Mstrict." (Emphasis 

idaed.) 

1943), 

In 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3rd 

541-543, it iS Stated: 

"General and special acts may be in 

materia. If so, they should be construed v ogether Where one statute 'deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with 

a part of the same Subject in a more 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 make the general act controlling." 

S.W.2d 1063, - 

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

e coapu Safdz 

” e It 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 and apt fllustratfon where one of 

the SUppoSedly ,conflfctfng Statutes was general fn its term8 and the 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, and therefore that it will control. 

TV E;;;," case both statute8 are permitted 

- the general one applicable to all 

cases except the particular one embraced in 

the specific statute. D s en 

Applying the prfnciple announced in the above 
Hon. 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 who have been assigned to try cases In districts 

other than their own and out of their own counties 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;ttmhe approval of the coannlssloners' court and county 

. However, Section 10 of Article 200a sets out 

speclflcally the prerequisites for payment of expense 

account8 for visiting dlstrlct judges. Under these proVi810nS the only requirement is that such accounts be 

"certified and approved by the Presiding Judge of the 

AdminiSt~tiVe MStriOt ." There 18 no provision in Artiole 2OCa to indicate that Its provisions are to be cumulative of Articles 1660 and 2351. On the 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. 

You are therefore advised that such expense accounts are subject to audit and review 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, we do not deem 

that a discussion of questions three and four is necesSWY. 

In regard to your fifth and sixth questions, 

such expense account8 are subject to audit by the county auditor from a "bookkeeplngn standpoint. However, 

thl8 IS not to be construed 80 as to authorlze a county 

auditor to review the legality of Items of expenditure 

contained therein when oertified and approved by a presiding judge of the administratIve district. 
Eon. Will R. Wilson, Jr*, page 5 (V-1111) 

Expense accounts of ViSitilIg distriot 

8 

udges 

he 

are subject to audit and review by 

presiding judge of the admInistratIve 

dl8trlct only. Art. 2OOa, Sec. 10, V.C.S. 

The presiding judge should refuse to 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, 

PRICE IkUQIEL 

Attorney General 

I 

: f ,/I ,,' . . 

By ,-;f ~~;.f fC:-I: lw 

Bruce Allen 

Assistant