OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

BOJL J. 3. Altied 

County Auditor 

m91or county 

sle City National mlldlng 

Hahita falls, mxcs 

war Sir: 

Your requert for 0 

oarefully oonaldered by thl 

your request as followa: 

the alaim after 

a8 above numberhe individual cormisng out warrants, eta. 

ally bound to do but does do for 

the public and the pub114 ofurt i8 of the opinion that this also 

is not a legal liability of the county, and therefore has asked me to submit the oounty olerkc8 

bill to you and ask that you give an opinion 

thereon." 

We hare a340 oarefully eramined the Olaim you 

tanol0red in your lstter. The alalm is for postage l xpenae 
Hon. J. 8. Allred, page 2. 

at the rate of 21.50 per month for the past 8 years for a 

t0td or w4.00. The olalm Is not Itemized, The rtatsment is ztade in the alalm that the postage was “used for 

mailing warrants for oounty in R & B Fund, I: & J Fund and 

Hospital Fund”. 

Opinion NO. O-1891 of this department passed upon 

this claim based upon the faot situation yreeented in the 

r4quest. The raot situation passed upon in opinion NO. 

O-1891, was a8 follows, quoting from the letter of request: 

“The OODrmiesloners~ Court of Baylor County 

has asked me, as their County Auditor, to get a 

ruling from you relative to payment or expenses 

or their oounty olerk over a period running 

baok as far as nine years for extra help and 

poe tageb It Is my understanding that this orrioer’s tee8 are supposed to oover any extra help 

he uses in hi8 offloe, as ~411 as the expense 

for po8 tage. Euring the time I have been county 

auditor in Enylor county, which la only part 

time work, slnoe the Oounty Is not large enough 

to require full time, the county has paid this 

offloer 4x-orfiofo fn an amunt for county and 

district clerk avaraging around $1400.00 per 

year, and It ~483~9 that th4se expenses should 

have been taken oar4 of by the offioer from theas 

payments, &so, in view or the faot that the orfleer is expeoted to make an expense statement 

nonthly to the oourt, whlah he has done and In . 

which he has not alatied th4s4 expsnses, it is 

my belief that hs is not entitled to olalz them 

at this late date. 

“1 would like to have your opinion on this 

matter for the full period or any part of the 

nine year perlod.~ 

Opinion NO. O-1891, held that the county via6 not 

liable ror the expenses olaimed. W4 quote from the opinion 

as r0110vv0: 

“The oounty has paid the county olsrk exofficio oompsnsatlon in the approximate sum of 

~~1400.00 per year during the above mentioned nine 

year period. The Conmlesioners~ Court Is debarred 

from allowing compensation for ex orricio servloes 

to oounty orrlolals when the conpensatlon and excess fees which they are allowed to retain shall 

rsaoh the maximum provided by law. .\a above stated, oounty orrlolals who are oompensated on a fee 

basis must pay their expenses out of feea earned 
Eon. J. R. Allred, Iage 3 

by their respective offices, and t:?o oon?mIssIonem* oourt Is without authority to allow payzent 

of the sane by the oounty. 

“You are respeotfully advised that It la 

the opinion at this departzent that the above 

rentloned expenses of the oounty clerk should 

have bean paid by him iron fees of office and 

the oounty hes no authority to pap such expenses.” 

?fe think Opinion no. O-1891 or this departzzent Is 

oorreot under tte faots stated and we adbtrs to that rUling. we 

also oall. your attention to the recent oa8e of Pierson vs. Galveston Cc,Inty, 131 3. W, (2nd) Page 27, which supports our oonolu8ion reaahad In Opinion z&O-1891. 

In your request ror opinion Upon the o1al.m as now 

pmzeented you stat., among other things, as follows: 

W ..,. the aountp olerk now OCE~S baak with 

another olaim which he does not c1aiE is expenses 

or orrioe, but that it is ror acoomodations to the 

court and the individual oomiesioners, ets., 1 n n.alcTng Out warrants, etc., which he is not legally bound 

to do but doer SO ior the oonveniencs of the pub110 

and the pub110 orrioiais.~ 

Ion of this 

You are therefore respectfully advised It Is the opindepartmnt, under the taats stated In your letter, 

that Raylor County, Texas Is not legally liable for the claim 

described in your letter, and that same should not be approved. 

Very truly yours 

CTTCiSEY cE?XRAL OF “CTiiS 

a9 

$$iy&zL+ 

Phn. J. Fanning 

Asri stant 

WJF: jm 

End1 ,