## x3 GENERAL

June 17, 1970
Hon. Joe Resweber County Attorney Opinion No. M- 650 Harris County Courthouse Re: Whether the Sheriff of Houston, Texas 77002 Harris County isauthorized to seize goats running at Dear Mr. Resweber: large, and related questions.

Your recent letter requesting the opinion of this office concerning the referenced matter states, inpart, as follows:

"1. Is the Sheriff ofHarris County authorized to **seize** goats running at large?
**” 2** 

**.** If **the** answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what procedure should the Sheriff follow to dispose of such goats?

**“ 3.**  If **the** answer to the first question is in **the** affirmative, what impounding fee, ifany, may the Sheriff charge for such goats?" Thematerials annexed to thememorandum brief submitted with your letter indicate that two stock law elections were held inHarris County in 1932: in one, the voters prohibited the running at large ofhogs, sheep, and goats. In the other, thevoters prohibited the running at large of horses, mules, jacks, jennets, and cattle.

Article 6930 et seq. of Chapter 5,Title 121, Vernon's Civil Statutes, as amended, set forth aprocedure whereby county voters **may** determine whether horses, mules, jacks, jennets, donkeys, hogs, sheep, or goats shall be permitted to run at large ina county.

-3114-Ron. Joe Resweber, page 2 (M-650)

Articles 6954 et seq. ofChapter 6 of this Title 121, as amended, set forth a similar procedure that relates only to cattle, and to no other type of animal.

The only statutory authorization for a sheriff's seizing stock running at large is found inArticle 6965 of Chapter 6 of this Title 121. ThatArticle provides, in part, as follows:

"It shallbe the duty of any sheriff or constable of any county, or subdivision thereof, within this State, where the nrwisions of this Chanter are ormav hereafter become operative, to seize any stockwhich may become known to him tobe running at large on any outside premises where the provisions of the stock law are in force, and impound the same in some place provided for that purpose, and immediately notify the owner thereof, and if such Owner is known to such officer, who may redeem the same on the payment of an impounding fee ofOne Dollar ($1)per head, and **the** following additional fee for each day such stock is SOkept: OneDollar ($1)pes day per head forhorses, mules, and cattle; fifty cents (5Oc)per day per head for jacks and jennets; and twenty-five cents (25C) per day per head for sheep, goats, and swine *..Dse0" (Rmphasis added.)
In our opinion, Article 6965, supra, imposes the duty upon a sheriff to seize and impound the stock named inChapter 6, Title 121,Vernon's Civil Statutes, and inaddition all the other stock named inChapter 5, of that Title, by reason of the two independent provisions of thatArticle which are underscored in the immediately preceding quoted portion thereof. The second provision, "where the provisions of **the** stock laware in force" imposes a separate and additional duty inaddition to

-3115-.

Hon. Joe Resweber, Page 3 (M-650)

the duty imposed by the preceding provision which refers to "thisChapter". This ismanifestly the intent of theLegislature because theArticle specifically provides fees for impounding the other animals named inChapter 5, inaddition to cattle named inChapter 6.

We are of the opinion that the following statement isapposite to **the** instant matter:

**“ A**  **statute** will be construed in such a manner as tomake iteffective, that is, enforceable and operative, if it is fairly susceptible of such an interpretation. Thus, where two constructions might reasonably be given a statute, ofwhich onewill effectuate the legislative intent andpurpose andmake the act operative, whereas the otherwill defeat that intent and purpose and render it inoperative, the former construction will be so interpreted as to secure thebenefits intended and aswill best effect the legislative purpose." 53Tex.Jr.2d 223-2.5,Statutes, $157.
It should bs noted that the Legislature, while seemingly restricting the operation ofArticle 6965, supra. to Chapter 6 of Title 121,Vernon's Civil Statutes, did set forth in thatArticle specific impounding fees for types of animals covered by both Chapters 5and 6 ofTitle 121, Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

### Inaddition, goats are mentioned specifically inArticle 6967,which isalso found inChapter 6 of Title 121,Vernon's Civil Statutes.

In this connection, ithas been said that: "Another fundamental rule requires that a statute be construed as awhole and that all of itsparts be harmonized ifpossible, so as to give effect to the entire act according to **the** evident intention of the legislature.

-3116-Ron. Joe Resweber, page 4 (M-650)

. . . (T)heCourt will endeavor toreconcile the various provisions of the act, insofar as they may appear tobe conflicting or inconsistent, to the end that the enactment and everyword, phrase, clause, and sentence may have itsproper effect. "Eachpart of the statute is tobe considered in connection with every other part andwith the entire enactment, in order to produce aharmonious whole and to reach the true legislative intent. Thus, in case of doubt as to themeaning of aparticular word, clause, provision, or section, it is tobe viewed in the light of all the language employed. It follws that aprovision will notbe given ameaning out ofharmony with other provisions and inconsistent with the purpose of the act, although itwould be susceptible of such construction standing alone." 53Tex.Jur.2d 229-32, Statutes, Sec.160. See, generally, 53Tex.Jur.2d 280-04, Statutes.Sec. 186, relating to the construction of statutes 

### inmri materia.
Even ifwe had not given Article 6965, supra, the foregoing construction, we believe the Sheriff ofHarris County would, nonetheless, have the power to seize goats running at large, since the provisions ofChapter 6 of Title 121,Vernon's Civil Statutes, were enacted andmade operative by the voters in the 1932 election that prohibited the running at large of cattle in that county.

For the foregoing reasons, your first question is answered in the affirmative.

-3117-. -

Hon. Joe Resweber, page'5 (M-650)

In answer to your second question, it is our opinion that the procedure tobe followed by the Sheriff indisposing **of** goats running at large is set forth in Articles 6965, 6969, and 6970,Vernon's Civil Statutes. See alsoAttorney General's Opinion No. S-01 (1953), which authorizes a county to lease land and build pens necessary to impound livestock seized by a sheriff pursuant toArticle 6965, supra.

In answer toyour third question, the impounding fee that **may**be charged for such goats by the Sheriff is $1 per head, plus an additional fee of 250r.perhead for each day such goats remain impounded, as provided in Article 6965, supra.

(1) The Sheriff ofHarris County is authorized to seize goats running at large in that county, pursuant toArticle 6965, Vernon's Civil Statutes. (2) The procedure the Sheriff would follw indisposing of such goats is set forth inArticles 6965, 6969, and 6970,'Vernon's Civil Statutes: and (3) The impounding fee tobe charged for such goats by the Sheriff is $1 per head, plus an additional fee of 250per head for **each** day such goats remain impounded, ursuant
.s toArticle 6965, Vernon's Civil Statutes. /'

General of Texas Prepared by Austin C. Bray, Jr. hSSiStant Attorney General
-3118-. .

Hon. Joe Resweber, page 6 (M-650)

APPROVED% OPINION COMMITTEE
Kerns Taylor Chairman W. E.Allen, Co-Chairman Bob Lattimore Charles Parrett **Malcolm** Quick Jerry Roberts
MBADE F. GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRBDWALKBR Executive Assistant
NOLAWHITB First Assistant

-3119-