OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Toan I. Colman, Jr. 

county httornoy 

ArlFOliaa county 

Lufkla, Toxaa 

Tour lmttor of 0 

0plxIloa froa thlr 

otions a oer- 

'II thir ~ootmty 

are employ8 a number 

hat ir, wblle they am 

' 

aoh dey tht the mohlnor to the first prltmry this OOPrt of those 8wn three wookr off and 

almoato runthemaeblnoa. The 

kept ontha pay roll, aid their 

i;a;rravbg worked, and they wwrm 

Kh6n this w6a Later dirstniaarr dated that he wau giving; 

the mm 6 raoa cm 88 km thought ha had a right to 

do, and refunded to tha oounty tho money which had 

bosn peLtI the moa. It *a8 my ruling that man amployed by the day by the oolrtlty would not be given 

tl oaction with jmy. According to tha JIaIlao News 
258 

Honorable Tom F. Coleman, Jr., Pago Z 

of August 29, 1940, thr distrlot attorney o? Dallas County ha8 alao ruled that there oan bo no paid 

vacation8 for worker8 pal6 on an hourly baslr. Thlr 

ruling wa8 aoquiosed in and a8 pr8riourly rtatad tho 

money wa8 rerundad. 

"Tharo 18 however 8oma avidenoa that tha payment 

mado ln thi8 case wa8 not intended a8 a paid vaoatlon, 

rlnoe the oOmmlssloner8 OoUrt, tha oounty auditor, 

and thr oounty trearurrr were not 80 infOl?llOd until 

after there -8 oonelderabl8 di8OU88lOn Of the Batter. 

'Thr qua8tlon, tharofora, on whloh f dO8irO an 

opinion i8 whrthar or not thr oounty oolnmirdoner and 

tho road omploye88 U&dOr thr taotr ar;given to you 

hare rlolatad any provision of tho Ponal Oodo. . . ." 

Your inquiry lnrolrer m&mI quortlonr Of law and of 

faot rrhioh oannot bo oatrgorioally l n8worrd by thlr DODaZ%mOntI 

they are 

lng. we 

Art10108 

95, eaoh 

datsrmlnable by i oourt br Juy in a~~~pa~~~~~:d;,~ 

her., howeror, oonoludrd a8 io 1OW8 

108 and 579, mentioned in your letter, and Artlolo 

ot the Penal Coda. 

Artiolr 108 do88 not rmbraor tho rubjrot aattrr do80ribrd; Article 378 r8qulror a pocunlary lntorost ln a oontraob, and under Artlolr 98 an re~entlal olsmont 18 a8 da8Orlbad ln YoKlnzlr v. Etato, 9e 5. W. (Sd) 4581 

*In order ror an OfiiO8r t0 bo guilty under thlr 

statute the money whloh hr 18 oharged with having 

lairapplied or converted auat havr OOm8 l;lt hh&U8tCdy 

Or pO8808SfOll by tirtU8 Of hi8 OtfiOa. 

*oome into his ouatody or pO8saB8lon* we think mean 

that ho wa8 in aotua1 po88sersfon thereof at the time 

of it8 oanvsrslon or ~8applloatlon.~ 

Sao al8o Eanna v, Stato, 153 5. W. (id) 105. 

Conaequantly, it 18 the opinion 0r tbl8 Department 

tbt n8ither th8 County COBaal88iOn43r nor the road l mp1OyO88 

bv*, undrr tha fact8 glt8n in your lettrr, 

108 or 375 or 95 or the P8nal Code of Toxa8. 

violated Art10188 

In vlsw of thi llmltad raotr b~oforr ~8, WI l x prorr 

n0 Opinion with rrferenoe to other general p~otirlonr of the 

Pen81 Cod6 suoh a8 thO8o detlnin theft by fal80 pratrxt, parJW or f6188 8wearlng, 8nd or ln! nal oonrplraoy. 
.-.-- 

Eonorablr Tom 1. Coleman, Jr., Page 3 

In Opinion NO. O-3784 thi8 DeQartnrsnt dirOU88ed 

other qWJ8tiOn8 touohlng thr 8ubjrOt mattrr oi your rOqUe8t 

which you may find lnionmtlra. wo ara, theraroro, l nolo8- 

lng a oopy of thir opinion. 

Your8 very truly 

ATTORNEY GWJSRAL .cO TEXAS 

BY 

ZCStBBB ‘8 

APJ?ROVEDDEC 6, ,I940 

--Y-- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TZXA