Boon. Robert L.~%;Yrk 

County Attorney 

* opitioa' lb. T-851 

Lamb County Re:JTexm time of the RiaLittlefield, Texas trict Court, 64th 'Judioia1 Dim?iot, an the 

' ligrrt of ramid le 

f 

islation mwting te 

distriot. 

P5ar Sir,: .* 

we refer to your letter o,f aeajr 84, 1947, s,a 

whioh you requested anopinion of this Department and 

which reads in part as.follows: 

"The District Court of Lamb County 

has been and is in the 64th Judicial Disc, 

trict. The last term began on the 5th 

Monday after the 1st bionday in January, 

1947, and was supposed to continue in 

session until the Saturday preceding the 

1st Monday in Augur&. A Grand Jury wae 

duly impanelled and attended te the business thea on hand. It was recessed until 

suoh time during the term as it might 

agaSn be needed. During this present see.- 

!, 

SPOB of the,Legislature, a bill was Lntroduced, pansed and became effeotive on Ray 

,Q 1947 which added Parmer County to the 

64th Judicial District, This bill slightly changed the terms of the varioue courts 

in the Distrbot. Xt did Rot change the 

be inning date of the next term of the, Dlstr 1 ot Court in Lamb County. This bill made 

no provision for ,the oantinuatlon ot the 

terms of, ,court then in seasion. It ia a&B-, 

templated, e.nd,therexists a neoessity for 

calling the Grand Jury in Lamb County back 

into eeeeion before the next term of Court, ; 

"Does the February term of C,ourt oontinue in Iamb County until the gaturday before the 1st Monday in Augurst, 19477 
Hon. Robert L. Kirk - Page 2 

"If the Grand Jurors iRho were imanelhd ]x. : in February were called back 

nto aessibn at this time;would an indictment presented by them be valid?= 

Upon checking the Bill in the Secretary of 

State's office.as passed by the Legislature, we find 

that it further provides that the terms of Court for 

Lamb County shall begin on the first Monday in February 

and the first Monday in August; and that eaoh term of. 

Court,.in each of such counties of the 64th District nay 

continue until the Saturday imnediately preoeding the 

Honday for oonvenlng the next regular term therein. 

The pertinent portion of Article V, Section 

7, of the State Constitution providea: 

*The State shall be divided into 

,ae many judioial diatriote as may now 

or hereafter be provided by law, whioh 

may be increased or dipliniahed by law 

. * . He shall hold the regular terms 

of his court at the county seat of each 

county in his distriot at least twioe 

In each year in such manner as may be 

prescribed by law.* 

In Keaton v. Stafe, 57 S.W, 1125, the appellant, under facts Similar to those berore us here, contended that the Court at the time of his conviction;was 

not lawfully in $ea&on, beoauee~the Legislature had, 

since the convening of the Court, repealed the law fixing the time for holding terms of the District Court in 

and for Coleman County by passing an amendment fixing 

the tiines for holding said Courtin 'said aounty, which 

terminated the February term, 1899, of said Court and 

this Court could not again lawfully.be in session before 

the first Monday in September, 1899. 7Ve quote from the 

caee as followa: 

n . . . Them regular'time for 

convening of the term of oourt at 

appellant was tried was the first 

in February, 1899, to continue in -. - 

the,' 

which 

Monday 

see- . _ 91011 four weeks. The Court was organized 

on said day. While the court was in session and being held under the then-existing law, the legielature passed an act, 

with the .emergenQ clause attached, merely addingto the term of court for Coleman 
Hon. Robert L. Kirk .- .Page 3 

county one weeks The amendment provided for the term to begin the first 

Monday in February and to remain in 

session five weeks,. It will be seen 

from this that the beginning of the 

term waa not changed, ana that the 

olear intendment of the legislature 

‘was aimply to ‘give one additional week 

to Coleman county for the distriot 

court, and the amendment was not intended to have a retrospeotive effect, 

60 as to repeal the then-existing 

term of the distriot oourt of Coleman 

county. Article 5, PI ,7, of the constitution provides: ‘The state shall 

be diviaed into as many judioial distriote as may now or hereafter be provided by law, which may’ be iacreaaed 

or diminished by law+. Be (the dietrlot judge) shall hold the regular 

term of his court at the county seat 

of, eaoh oounty in his district at 

least twice each year, in such menner 

as may be presaribed by law. ( The 

bare statement o.f this oohstitutional 

provision would certain1 

ooastruotion of the Le 

precluds the 

amen nt 

legislature as contended for b 

by the 

lant; his oontention being tha f 

appel-, 

the 

amendment repealed the previ~ua law 

whereby the session of the distriot 

oourt of Coleman county was authorized 

to begin on the first Monday fn February. If this is~a repeal of the old 

law, then Coleman oounty would be deprived of on% term of the diatriot 

court, which would be in the face of 

the a$n&itutional prsvision quoted 

l L . 

In the case of Rx parte Murphy reported in 

11 5. w. 487, the defendant insisted that his oonviotion 

was ‘illegal and void beoause rendemd at a time when a 

legal term of the Court could hot be had& We quote from 

the same as follows: 

” o ,The facts ,are that the aaid 

term wai ie’ld at the time“fixed bye the 

act of 1885, (Laws 1805, p’. 8,) that is, 
Hon. Robert L. Kirk - 'Page 4 

commencing on the fifth after the first 

Monday in March. On April 2, 1829, six 

days prior to the convening of said term, 

on April 8th, an aot was passed by the 

legislature ohangiw the time of holding 

said court in said county to the fourth 

Monday in Uarch.~ This act contains an 

emergency clause, and declares that it 

shall take effect from.its passage. Applicant contends that after the passage 

of said aot of April 2, 1889, a legal 

term of the dietriot oourt for Karnea 

county could not be held, except at the 

times prescribed by said act: 

*We are of opinion that the term 

of the oaurt at whioh the oonviotion was 

had was a legal term. If it were held' 

otherwiee, the effeot woulU be t&deprive 

Karnes county of on0 term of said court 

for the present year, when the constitution dealares that twu terms of the district court shall be held each year sin 

eaoh county. Con&, Art. 5,I3 7, In-construing an act of .the legislature,, It is 

the duty of the court to so interpret‘the 

legislative iatent as to harmonize the 

pr@YiSiOi.M of' the sot with the oonstitution, if this can be,done rea,eonably,& It 

must be presumed that the legislature did 

not intend to disregard the above-cited 

provision of the oonatitution by depriving Karnes or any other'county of the disc 

triot of the oonstitutfonal right to have 

two terms of the diatriot court in each 

year. If such was the intent, the act 

would be void, and the courts in that district would have to oontinue to be held at 

the times fixed by the old law. Wotwithstanding the emergency clause'in said abt 

of April 2d, we feel justified in ho&ding 

thatit uas not the legislative intent 

that said act should immediately take effeot, but that it should become operative 

only at a time whsn it would not deprive 

any oounty in the district of~,two terms of 

court, , r" 

In view'of the foregoing, you are respect- 
Hon. Robert L. Xirk - Page,45 '> 

fully adrieed that it is the opinion ot this Department 

that the February term of Court continues in Lamb Couniig4ytil the Saturday before the iirat Monday in August, 

. (8~ aleo Bowden, et al, Y. Crawford, 195 S.W.5) 

This being true, it naturally follow6 that 

the second question is answered in the arfi~mative. That 

ia, ii the Grand Jurors who were impanelled in February 

were oalled back'into session at this time, an indiotment presented by them would be valid. 

SUMMARY 

The preeent term of the Dietrict Court 

of Lamb County remaina unohanged for the remainder of the ,term even though the Legia; 

lature passed a Bili effeotive May 3~1947, 

changing the terms of' oerta~in counties of the 

04th Judioial Distriot, of which Distriot 

lamb County belonga,~.ana ,although the Bill 

made no provision for the oontinuatioh of the 

terms of Court .then in ee$sion; otherwise the 

,oounty ?iwouM be deprived or two full terms or 

Court each yeax,in violation of Article V, 

Seo. 9, of the State Constitution, Keaton v, 

State, 57 S.W. '1125; Ex parts Murphy, 11 S.W; 

4870 If the 'Grand Jurora who were impaaelled 

in the February term wexe callea back-into 

session at this times an lndiotment presented 

by them would be valid. : 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GEWBRAL 03' TEXAS 

BA:WR Assistant 

APPROVED JURE 12, 1947 

iiiii&or ,-a