OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
**GROVERSLLLERS** ATIO”NL*

**GIWUIAL**

::onorable

Shelby K. Long sounty Attorney ,'efrerson

county aeaumont, Texar 3ear 

### sir: 0plnionNO. O-7079 Iie: Would the trial/'udge be entltled to thp Statutory Seepro9ided Under sec. 1052, C.CaP., in the\oaaea in quea- ~~~h~&~heijeooused was

\ ?e cuote from
"on the 24th Gamewarden, at OysterCommlsslon, oinot No. 1, Jerrerson againstone R. J,$epers for sale and ,M+lng,,ln

These csseq wS~e for the defend-

‘\< *“It.ls’the oontentlon of the trial judge that "@ ,eaohOf these cast?s,he is entitled to the atatutorTfee provided under Seotion 1052 C.C.P., slnoe tHe aotion taken in eaoh inetanoeamounts to a final dieprrsltion

of the matter, therebybringing to sn end the trial 0r eaoh 0696. In support of this oontention the 0888 ot Richardson 9s. State, 4 3. ‘;!. (Zd) 79, is cited.
Ye respectfully rscuestyour opinion in this regard.-:‘J;orable rjhelby::.Lon# - Face 2

.3rtlole1052 of our Code of Crlxlnal Frooedure, CY a.landedin 1929, reads:

"ThreeDollars ehallbe paid by the oounty to the County Judge, or Jude6 or the court at Uw, and Twc Dollars and fifty oents skall.be paid by thecounty to the Justice of thepeace, for each criminal action triad and rlnally disposed or berorehia. provided, however, that in all oounties having a population of 20,000 or 1888, the Juatioe 0r the Feace shall reoeivea trial fee or Three collars. such Judge or Justice shallprsaent to the Conrnlssloners~ Court of his county at a regular terx thereof, a .*ritten account speclrying each crlxlcal action inwhiob ha olaiiussuch fee, cartifled by such Judge or Juatlca to be oorreot, LX filed witi; the County Clerk. The Comlssioners* court shall approve such aooount for such amunt as they find to be correct,and order a draft to be ismed upon the countyTreasurer in favor ot suchJudge or Justice for theamount so approved. rrovided the Cozkxissioners~ Court shall not pay any account or trial fees In any case tried and la&lob an aoquittal is had unlese the State oi Texaswas represented in the trial of'ssid cause by the County Attorney or his assiatarit, Crlulnal District Attomey or his assistant, and tbe cer-, tirioate of said Attorney is attaohed to said aooount certirying to theSnot that said cause woe tried, snd the State ol Texaswad represented, and that in his judgznent therewas surricient evidence .insaid oause todenand a trial or asze.n % think the decision of the court of orlslnal Appeals of Texas in the oase of g:ohardaon 9. State, cited by you, is decisfve of tke l.uestlon hare presented. In that case the oourt said:
“.

. . The oontentlon ismade, as we underatrnd it, that the Jud@e*s fee isdirectly deFondant upon an sotual trial and disposition Or CaSba in his court, snd tterer0re a motion to ,-uash an inrormtlon or indictmentbefore hix, if sustainad, results nacasaarlly in his not.

# 385

TTocorable

Shelbyp. Lone -rape 3

receiving compensation;whereas, if eame is overruled,and the oase actually tried and disposed Of, he will receive a Se6 of $3 underartiole 1052,O.C.P. 1925

. . . . ."
".
. . . *Theremight be suoh iasuea tried and disposedof In a motion to quaah 88would amount to a final dlrposltion and trial of a osse and discharge oi the aooused. ':ecan use no reason to doubt that in such a case the oounty judgewould be entitled to hia 166, payable,however, by the oouoty
. . . .W The oopy of motion to quash analosad with your letter shows that the two ground8 or the motion8 to cueah the complaintswere: first, that the act under which the ;rosecutlonswere brought waa unoonstltutional in that the caption thereoiwas def8Ctlve; and second, that said aot was unoonstitutlonal in that it embraced more than one subjeot. Themotions to quash were sustained, Those are, In our opinion, Wauch issues tried and disposed of in a motion to cuashaswould amount to a flnal diepoeition and trial of a aaae and disoharge of theaocu6ed.f~

It Is therefore our opinion that the Justloe of the Fee06 is entitled to oolleot 

### from the county his trial Se88 5.o said oases, in aooordanoe with theprovisiona of said ArMole 1052, C.C.P.

This opinion, however, is limited to the state of raotspresented in the instant caseg,and on the assumption ttat theprecinat 0rrfoers 0s Jefferson county are oompensated on a fee basis.
Yours very truly
ATTCRW C%FAiL OF T3XAS