E,XAS 

Hon. Bill Hollowell 

Chairman 

Housetial Investigating 

Committee 

Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir8 

January 24, 1963 

Opinion No. C- 5 

Fler Whether, under the provlsions of Article 893 of 

Vernon's Penal Code, 

Justice Courts have jurisdiction to try persons 

charged with violations 

of Texas Game and Fish 

Laws and related question. 

We have reoelved and carefully considered your 

requeat for an opinion upon the following questions: 

1. “Under Article 893 of the Penal Code 

and under the Constitution of Texas, the committee would like to know If Justice Courts 

in Texas have juslsdlotion to try those charged 

with violation of Texas Fish and Game Laws,” 

2. “Under Article 893 mentioned above is 

it mandatory that the court or jury decide 

whe%her to forfeit or restore a license when a 

case is disposed of by them.” 

Section 1 of Article 893, Vernon’s Penal Code, 

provides: 

“Any person charged in any court in 

this State with an offense of violating 

any law which it ia the duty of the Game 

and Fish Commissi~on to enforce shall have 

the right to have the court or jury before 

which said person is tried either to for- 

%othe license of said person so charged 

restore said license to said person 

so charged for the remainder of the license 

period. me court shall so state in its 

judument whether or not the license of 

said Derson Is revoked or whether or not 

Bald nerson shall retain samet" (Bmphasls 

arlnari -----, 1 
Hon. Bill Hollowell, Page 2 (C-5 ) 

In Ex Darte A J. Morris, 325 S.W.2d 386 (Tex. 

Crlm. 1959) the Court held that the Justice Court was without jurisdiction to try a person under a statute, making It 

unlawful to enter the lnclosed land to hunt or fish, which 

provided as the maximum punishment a fine of not more than 

$200 and forfeiture of hunting license and right to hunt 

for one year, because punishment u,nder the statute was not 

limited to a fine of $200.00. 

Article V. Section 19 of the Constitution of Texas, 

reads as follows: 

"Justices of the Peace shall have 

jurisdiction in criminal matters of all 

cases where the penalty or fine to be 

ImDosed bv law mav not be more than for 

two hundred dollars . , . 11 . 

added) 

(Emphasis 

Article 60 of Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure 

provides that Justices of the Peace shall have Jurisdiction 

in criminal cases where "the fine to be imposed by law may not 

exceed two hundred dollars." Under the wording of the 

Constitution and statute, jurisdiction of the Justice of the 

peace rests solely on the fine to be Imposed by law not 

exceeding $200.00. 

It should be noted that in defining the jurisdiction 

of corporation courts and concurrent jurisdiction of justices 

of the Pease, Article 62, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, 

provides, s . . $n which Dunishment Is be fine only, and 

where the maximum of such fine may not exceed two hundred 

dollars. . .' 

In ,Bx varte ROY Howard, .34'7 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. Crlm. 

1961) held where the punishment for the violation of the 

statute the defendant was charged with violating (Article 910 

Vernon's Penal.Code) was by a fine of not less than $50.00 

nor more than $200.00 and the forfeiture of hunting license, 

that the justice court had no jurisdiction. 

The Court went on, to say: 

“Artble 5, Section 19 of the Texas 

Constitution, Vernon's Annotated Statutes, 

limits the criminal jurisdiction of the 

Justice Courts to offenses where the 

punishment which may be assessed is by 

a fine only, not to exceed $200.' 

-lb 
- 

Hon. Bill Hollowell, Page 3 (C- 5 ) 

In answer to your first question, It Is our opinion that the Justice Courts do not have jurisdiction to try 

those persons charged with violating any law which It is the 

duty of the Game and Fish Commission to enforce in those 

cases wherein Section 1 of Article 893, Vernon's Penal Code 

apply. 

'We now consider your second question. Prior to 

the 1953 amendment Article 893 read In part as follows: 

"Any person convicted of violating any 

provision of the game laws of this state shall 

thereby automatlcallv forfeit his license for 

said season. . .r (Emphasis Added) 

The right to hunt was automatically forfeited by a violation 

of such laws and a conviction of the defendant under said law. 

The statute did not confer upon the court the authority to 

forfeit the defendant's right to hunt, and the inclusion of 

such provisions in the 

v. State* 69 S.W.2d 89 

udgment was of no 'effect. 

Tex.Crlm. 1933). 

Galloway 

After the 1953 amendment, Section 1 of Article 893, 

Vef;;;is Penal Code, read as above statedon page 1 of this 

It is stated in 26 Tex. Jur. XI 533, Game and 

Game lak, Section 10 that: 

"Formerly a conviction of violating any 

provision of the game laws automatically forfekted the license of the convicted person, 

" and he could not obtain another for a speclfled period. Under the present law, however, 

any person charged with violating any law that 

It is the duty of the Game and Fish Commission 

to enforce has the rlzht to have a court or 

jury decision on the question of forfeiture and 

of restoration of license." (Emphasis added) 

Sections 4 and 5 of the Act amending Article 893 

reads in part as follows: 

"Sec. 4. All laws, OP parts of laws, 

local, general or special, are hereby repealed 

to the extent that they ponfllct with any 

provision of this Act. 

"Sec. 5. The fact that such licenses 

are now automatically forfeited on a vlolatlon of any hunting and fishing law without 
- . 

Hon. Bill Hollowell, Page 4 (C-5 ) 

allowing same to be at the discretion of the 

court, creates an emergency. . .II 

(Emphasis added) Acts 53rd Leg. R.S. 1953, 

Ch. 5, p.11. 

This further Illustrates that the Legislature 

Intended to repeal the automatic forfeiture of licenses, 

that existed prior to the 1953 amendment, and give the trial 

courts the discretion of determining whether the license 

should be forfeited. 

Construing the question of the forfeiture, the 

Court In the case of Ex parte A. J. Morris, suora, said: 

"It, Is apparent that the amended Article 

893, V.A.P.C. . . . specifically provides that 

the forfeiture of the hunting license of the 

defendant is for the court or,,jury and e be 

provided for in the judgment. 

added) 

(Emphasis 

It Is therefore our opinion that when a person is 

convicted In such cases in a court of competent jurisdiction 

it is mandatory upon the court or jury to decide whether 

to forfeit or restore his license and provide for same in 

the judgment. 

SUMMARY 

1. The Justice Courtis without jurisdiction to try a person charged with the 

violation of any law which it is the duty of 

the Game and Fish Commission to enforce, in 

those cases wherein the provisions of Section 

1 of Article 893, Vernon's Penal Code are 

applicable. 

2. When a person is convicted In such cases 

In a court of competent jurisdiction it is 

mandatory upon the court or jury to decide 

whether to forfeit or restore his license and 

provide for same in the judgment. 

Yours very truly,. 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 
Hon. Bill Hollowell, Pais 5 (C-5 1 

By&/a 

Gilbert J. Pe a 

Assistant Attorney General 

GJP:cjs 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

W. V. Geppert, Cha%rman 

Norman Suarez 

Bill Allen 

Joseph Trlmble 

John Reeves 

REVIEWED FOR THJ3 ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Stanton Stone 

APPROVED: 

Waggoner Carr