OFFlCE OFTHEAlTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN

HonorabLa W.L. Edwaada County Attornay vlotorla **County** VIctoris,, Taxaa

. Dear Sir: : Payment of oountp attornaye whoact aa distriot’attorneys.

Tour letter oi Ootober 14, 19i.1, requsstlng the ’ opinion OSthis department reads In part a8 follows:

. “This letter is writtqn in Counsotion with your Opinion No. 

### O-3773, adarsessd to the Hon. MO.’ H. Sheppard. m that oplnlon, the aspartment held that Xr. Sartln oou3.Unot draw his salary aa District Attorney during his absence, an8 that thsri was no evallablo appropriation for the pafie@ o$ Diatrlct Attorneys pro-turn. WIare In-booogd with your apinion on those qu8stlnn0,.

,. *I nowask you to oonsider tht quest& rzytmthe stsndpoltit di County Attornaya, who agt In the abaenog of tha District Attornry 

### underArtlola 

### 26(OCP) amAmended, whloh reads
as fol.lows~r

*‘Art. 

### 26.J’hr co&Q attorneys shall ,attand the terms or a11 oourts 1 hi

-.oountr below tha Rraae. o*~~bl4tirl%i **okrt** and shall remesant the Stat0 Sn all crf&

‘inal casaa =a02 rxamlnatlon or orossoutfon In ea%doountvl and in ths absence’ of .tha dl8trlot attopney hr mhall raDraaent the State alone. or when rmxmstrd. shall afd Fhe dlstrlot attorney In the proeeoution o? anyoasa In behalf of the stats in tiia &&lot ‘

oourt. and in auOh oaaea he ahall rroefve all or one-half of the fees allowed 

### bylaw to distrlot attornrye, acoording aaHonorable Y. L. Bdwards, Fege 2

hesotea e10ce or jolntlx. In suoh oases

, I 11 orone-half of the
~~s~“~;ln$~eb~l~~ t.0thedlatrlot sttorney aho~3dutlaa he perforas, or assists in perforsing, but shall r~aiva no Part
**of the**  **CW3titUtiOIVIl 33l3rf**  **3llOvd to**  **such** district sttornsg, aOOGrdiPg **0s ha**  acted alone or faintly; provlds4 that fees collactoa bythe county attorneY from the state for such sarvloas shall be deducted by the ComptMJller Of FUbliO **,?.CCCUXd fro=**  the faas which othsrwlae would have baa psid to the district aftorney had ha feW’+ Panted tha State alone; movldad further t.h;s artiols shall not be OOn3trued ss inhibitlng any county attorney froa voluntsrily,
**with the**  **Conssnt of**  ths **aistriot ettornws**  casirttin;; the district attorney in the perfor-mnce or 111srespective duties, without oon,pans~tion. sIi9anatn STcts 1933, 43rd. Leg.)

. )

. . ’ p 177 ok’-83 )
“The question thus prsaentsd as 1a8.ait ia

otion of the vord Vseti” a’sto its

nsalaryn or Qaymr in this

*It Is Ily,oontantlon that the word VC~B* in this Statute should be

### oonstruedwith rerar¶noa to the PurPoW Of the Statutr, whioh in this instanO* *ra* undoubtedly to 

### proola~ooaren$ation for County Attorneys, wholsot In the absence or DistrIOt AttOrn6ys, at. ths 9~x6 rate or pay aa DIetriot fittOrnsys., and out of the find sat aside for ‘the EiStriOt Attornsy. The Legislature un.. doubtedb contemplated ttiet at tines ror *oma
resson the 3ietrlct dt~oruey would be unable to act Or ~.w.O~mad UG8istanoe, and ior that raasou .m~dsprovision for .the oo~~pene.atlon at the county b.ttorney. Anyothsr conltruotlon laevse the
,“tetuts without meaniq.

“It fS W cOIlt6ntiOn chat, the F.t.ntuts, Art. 26 afOr%*id, CsD.be conetruad i.nno other.way than tiint the Y:cnl *pithth% \*ords“f34S” should be **Used** intsrchangeably

“Fey” or “solaryn, or any other words d*notlnr coapsnsetion.Honorebla %.L. Edwards, Fags 3-

“It arpaars to methat thr Legislature lntended that the County Attorneys should be paid out of tha salary fund of the District Attorney, and thst the use of the word efeesw, instead of the word “salary” was sixply an orersl#t. To substsntiote this stete3ent, I call your attention to the history o? the various articles involved. Article 26vas evidently written at:8 ~tine when Dlatriat i?.ttorneys T’:SIOon.a fee ba&la. The original etotute aaa the seation which 1s above underltned. The 40th Legislature in 1927 araended Article 1021 C.C;‘r., which prcvldes for the pavxant of District. Attorneys. Ofcours.3, .:.rtlcla iO21, had the a3ect of taking the Dlstrlct lttornay off the fee baaie end placifig hlfl on apar diem basis. The 43-d. Le~ialature in 1933, after the passage of Article 1621, and its axaandnent, menCadArticle 26. The mended pert beicg that portion ~rhicb 14 net underlinsd above. I believe it to 53 the laql -resuxotion ihot the Lepislatura took cognizance of the existing 1~~~6at the tine it aada this gjaendxent. If this is correct, the Legislature then rasaed their a;vand.nent knowing that District Sttorneys were no longer on a r40 beds, but were on a per diea basis. Therefore, the intent of the Legislature was evi.dWltly to raaah any fund@ held by the Comptroller’ to pay Distrlat Attorneys for the purpose of paying County Attorneys whoact in their stead. Ofcourse, Article 3886r (R.C.S.) is nowthe existing atatute :eith referenaa to gsynent ol Sistriat Attorneya. The above is cited for the purpose of shoving that the Legiolature did not intend that tine :+ord ‘Y4e.e” should be usad in arestricted sense. Asabove ststed, *ny other construction laaoes Article 26, 8s aasnddd, wholly valualesa and nesnln~less.

*I do not believe the ‘Jogas case, 67S.?:. (26) 856, Caters the situation. In the first plaae. that proceed&? was avldently brou‘;ht to recovsr r444 aa provided by Article 1025 C. C. P. In the rsaond plaae the Court in disposing of the aase altes Article 26 as it existed before ita alendslant. The court held that the County Attorney could not racovtr fees provided byArticle 1025 for the reason that the Dlstrlot Attorney ~4s not
on4fee basis but was paid under Xrticla 1021 on aper diem .besis.Eonorablo X.L.’‘Zdwerds, Fege 4

. h- ----*A-** to Artlale 26, passed

, I believe the Leglaleture 

## “BytaiPUS~W.u~Y

” sitar the par diem lew, alearly IndiMiteU its intention that themCounty Attarney should bepaid out of the fund or money set aside for the purpose of paying the Distrlat Attorney had he sotad. w;(enlfestly, ii. this intentlop; 1s clearly lndiaated, a strained or taahnlcsl bonatruatlon of amere word rhould not be allowed to defeat it, 

### l rFeaially when auah aonstructlon.would be inequitable.

“1further a611 your attention to the language or Section 2, or Art. 38861 R. C. s., the preasnt salary law. This statute sprclriaally rsappropriates a&l manlea heretofore appropriated bythe Leglslatura to pay fees, salaries, and par dlea atiaountr of the o?!i%ers nsmsd.

‘In view of the fact that the County Attorneys of Vlatorla, Calhoun, s.atuglo and Jackson Countiss
are affected, I ask that you give thla cmttar your moat aaraful. considera tlon. 7

Artlale 31, Code of-‘Grlmlnal Proobdure, provlcleer

WVheneter any dlatriet & county battornay rails to attend any .tero of tha distrlat, county

‘

_ ‘or $astlaea courte, the:judge of mid aourta
or l uah justloe may appoint some competent attorney to pariorm the dutlee of euah dlatriat or aounty attorney, who shall beallowed the sene ooapensatlon ror hia servlaea aa la allowed the Cldtrlct attorney or aouqty attorney. Said appolntaent ahsll not extend beyond the tera of the court at

. whiah. it is msde, and shall be vacated upon the appearance of the dletrict or aounty attorney.”

Aeweunderstand your request you desire the opinion of this depertment wlth referenae to the amount or aompeniatlon, if any, a aounty attorney la entitled when tha aouaty ettorheg aate in the absence of the dietriot attorney under Article 26, Code of Crlmlnal Frocedura.

54 think that Artiale 26snd krtiale 31, supra, mat beHonorable ir. L. Sdnards, Page 5

eonetrued together, andrhrh ao conatrusd, it is olear that the Leslalatura has mado it the duty, and it Is llkewlsr the right,-of thr oounty attornay to rap&sent the Stata in the district oourtr la the abseaoe of the district attorney. In ..ths sbsancr of the dlatrlot attorney, the duty and thr authority to reprrsoat the Stata In the district court ir ooararrad by the statutrs upon tha oounty attorney. It Is not upntraplatrd nor Is it aeoessary, that the oourt should dsslgauto the oouatg attorney as district attorasy pro tra. It la only whoa the dintriot attorney and;tha aounty attorney sre absent that the. court 1s euthorlrsd toYhppolat adlstrlat sttornsy pro tom. fn a latter oplnlcn addressed to Hoaorabls Cullea D. Vaaoe, County Attorney, 3dae, Texas, oa ?ebruary 12, 1935, thir dapsrtmsnt rulrd that a dletrict ju&e 1s wlthout anthoritr to appoint ra attornsy pro tam to reprsseat the State whrn either tho dlstriot attorney or tha oounty attorney le prssoat,
Whenthe oountp attorney acts ia ths abaenoa of the dlstriot attorary ha must raoalvr his oospsaaatloa for sold aervlcas under the provisions of Artiols 

### 26,rather than under the provlalons of Article 31. The rISht of the county attorney 

### ineuah instaaos to conpsnsstloa under Article 

### 26depends upon nhathar fare are allowed **to** the dlstrlot attorney of the dlstrlot for the services psrforned, la the abseaos of the dlstrlot attorney,by tha oounty attorney. SlnoaJanuary 1, 1936, tha dlstrlct dlstrlots of this Stats
an annual salary in than by tha allowanoa

Clrll Statutes) *This ooapaasatlon **d6aa**not depend **on**the aumbur **.of**oaa6s triad, or the result achieved, and rrcludes all other ~oapsnration azoapt hie annual salary.’ .(Voea v. Sheppard, Coma. App. of Tsx. Saotloo A opinion adopt.88 bythr Supreme Court,

. 

### 67S.M. (2nd) 856.) Slnoa distriat attorney8 

### are no longer oompansated on tha raa basla, but by the payment of en annual Salary, snd the-l@slstura hasasds no rovlslon for coapansat1Y the oonnty attorney whoaots la tiiasbsanoe of the dlstr ot attorney by spproprlatlon to hla apart of the salary to ba paid to tha dlatrlot attorney, it folloaa that thr oountg

‘attorney whosets la ths ebarner of the distrlot attorney fa not l atltlrd to ooapensstion for tha saroioas thus rendered.

Trusting that the roragolng rully anawara your q&f, wam-0

Yours vary truly 

### ln-