OFFICEOFTHEAHORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eonorcnbla J. z. Iooney 

Cou3t.y mdltor 

Eowie County 

IMeton, Texas 

Opinion No. G- 

%: 

Your requscrt for 

oarefully ooasidered by tbl 

requsat as follewsn 

II receivea 52x4 

9Q quote from your 

la whioh you h 

sot-have the r 

is ceuaty-'ror 

Paaos to retain this 

ay &wmer Juetloee 0r 

ivil llfa, also retained 

All partie aonmred 

uaber tho improsslon that l 

oe hed:the le& right to retain 

aasuuh 98 the cclleotlon5 are 

y the J'ustioe or the YbOoo asid he 

all the bookkeeping work 6ttaamt 

upon 5alQ colleoting. 

*Ty Justio# of the Peace hare had no legal 

authority to ntaik theee u6.m~1561orm, it r0ihi8 

t&t, hevlng mitttskenly done SO, they znust 0~6 the 

ammat or the ooarsieaione retained to Bapllfoae. 

To whom do %he~ ewe them? 

: 

05 Juno 27, 1911, in en oplnion~writtsn by Eonar- 

'Falter C. itoodward, Asaistent Attorney Gemrel of Teza~8, 

depart!sient beld that a Juetloe of _- the peace rould be 

ebl e 

thle 

aiitltlad to retain 5 F OS the fine 0ollecteQ by i-d.3 under 

Brtiole 1144 of the then exIstinn Texes code Or Cr Ins1 WC+- 

WeLU8 an& that suoh hold- uaa-not ia oonfliot.with the 

.ataue ar EMLennsn Gounty v. bo~eess, suprd. This o-pinion *

recorded lo 701. M,.pagocr 40 and 41. Gpihion Reoorda or the 

Attomey.G,eneral of Wxes. Se cmclose herewith e copy of. 

~&id 0Fiai~~1 IOr yOIS wOonPpciOJ% 

pald to the oounty b!i per cea~t. of tho swneys referred to lo tbe f'lnd:n@ OS fact. The faots show 

that he pafd to the aounty only BG per cent., end 

peld to tbc ootmty ettormy 1C per cent. end to 

t-he ecmetatli) 5 per amt. and ret3lned another 3 

per oazlt. for btieelf. It le stated in ths iaotion 

for new trig1 tbet.'tb# attorney General's depertmsnt hss reanntly held that, vhan.Q $urticti of tbs 

pee08 collootr! n fine Srm tbe Party spinet whom. 

it has been edJudeed by a judgment or his aourt, 

he Is entitle6 tc 5 per oent. tkercof undar article 

1144. Thst ruling my be entirely cormact, but, ; 

if 60, It furnishes no reams ~for sett1t.g er?lde t&e 

Judplent rendered by this aourt epinst Bogas end 

the sureties upon bia otficlel tond. Ir be wes entitled to 5 px oent. oaeaisslon under artiole 1144, 

then the oonstable wes not entitled to tke 5 per 

cent. oowl~alun which Hoaqees paid to hi& IIt wfw 

not lewrul to teke more then one comaiaelon from 

the filnss for.oolleotihp the sexes, and, addinff to 

that 10 per :oeut. ior the ooutity attorney, left W 

per .a;cnt. thereof due the emnty, *hfie I)og@~~o has 

only paid to the cousty 80 per oent.* 

However, Artfols 951; C. G. P., 1928, ruprrr, wu8 

tmendeb by the 41st Le~~sleture ol' Texss %b 1929. 

Artlole 951, Varao~~s Aanotdisd Texas Code 0r Crlminel Fro4cidum1, as slarnded by the 41st Le&elature of Texas, 

1929, snd a6 ft now t~xists, reeds a5 follows: 

"The sherirr or other orrioer, 

ae of the Peeoe. or hio alark, 

laoamy for the State or coanty, exoept Jury fees, 
Eoaorable J. D, Looney, yage 4 

unbar ay provieioa of this Code, shell be entitled 

to retain Sire per cant thereof I*hen oolleoted. 

(Aots 1875, p. 287; kots 1889, p. 98, ae amended 

dote 1929, Ust 

(UnAoreoorlng( alre 7 

.* B. 240, oh. 105, 8 1.)" 

hsr sine8 the 1.089 amendment to Artiole 951, 

Y. A. C. 0. Y., eupra, thie dopertrmnt ha8 repeated1 

f 

ruled 

thati+ jaetloe~ or the peaoe wee not entitled to reta n 

of rm8 and trlalr888 003.hcsts4 by him. 

5$ 

See Opinion sm. 

0-ll02 8~4 O-5105 of this deprtaeat, aoplee of whioh are 

unoloee4 for your intomatlon. 

O~inibn Iso. O-686 ot thla departant holds that 

a~ehetilf~lentitled to 5% oommlealon on ilnee ln euoh inetawas onlr ae,eueh fine8 were eolieoted by the eherlrr. 

Aaewering your queetione it ia our oppinionr 

I, Mar to'&8 19e9 ereendment to Art14318 961 

V. A. C. 0. P., a juetioe or the peaae was entitled to 5$ 

ooa&eelon.cm fine8 aot.uellY aolleoted br b&a. However,~ It ..,.. thb~00n8ta~~~twih8mr actual1 

of th. jaetioe l ueh o?X&oer wouli g 

11 tat 

.i%:led 

he fin6 inetea4 

to the 8$ amrdeelon; in no went would the juetiae and the arrwtfiu OSfioor heve bsa oaoh l nti%lod to l aomaleeioe. See MeLem 

OouAty 13. o g g *ee, l upro . 

6. Biooe the 1989 emndaat to Artialo 951, V. A. 

0. 0. F., a juetioo of the pea08 ie not 8MAtled to a oommleeio a n ItImeo lleo tbed y h im. !ior ishe l a tlt1 t.d e 

aomlrrlon M trinl fees oolleoted by hla. 

8. 3ot baing Legally entltloQ to retah o&aelan8 oa fine8 oolliated by him elwa the 1999 amendmat to 

Artiale 981 eupm, it woeld Sollow thet,tho juetloe rhd 

thereeftar ille@&r retalned euoh oommleetoae would lawfully owe same to whom it lawf'ulty bmXoqe4, eubjoot, ot 

oouree, to the right of t&e juetioe to invoke the l ppro - 

prlato limitation statute it the olalmwae barra by liriktioa. ror example, IX the~juetlae oolleatad the tlm rro 5$ 

oonieelon ,yee dues came should not lmre been ratalnod but 

ehoul4 have becm turned Into the countyi in euoh oaee the 

justioe woul4 ewe the ootanty and the oouety aould remv8f 

from the juetioe of the psclce .l,f the olaipr waa not berreB 

by the l tatut~ of liritetloae properly plea&d ln defenee 

by the juetioe. 
Tauetlng t&at this eatietaatorlly amwars your 

ino*, W@ al-u. 

Bsry truly yours 

ATTO?SET OEbellRAI~ OY TJ&XAB 

WJF:qP 

Enal. 

umfo aRd pw.