OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVERSLLLERS 

ATIO”NL* GIWUIAL 

::onorable Shelby K. Long 

sounty Attorney 

,'efrerson county 

aeaumont, Texar 

3ear sir: 0plnion NO. O-7079 

Iie: Would the trial 

/' 

udge be 

entltled to thp Statutory 

See pro9ided Under sec. 1052, 

C.CaP., in the\ oaaea in quea- 

~~~h~&~heijeooused was 

\ 

?e cuote from 

"on the 24th 

Game warden, at 

Oyster Commlsslon, 

oinot No. 1, Jerrerson 

against one 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 

"@ ,eaoh Of these cast?s, he is entitled to the ata tutorTfee provided under Seotion 1052 C.C.P., slnoe 

tHe aotion taken in eaoh inetanoe amounts to a final 

dieprrsltion of the matter, thereby bringing 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 rscuest your opinion in this 

regard.- 
:‘J;orable rjhelby ::. Lon# - Face 2 

.3rtlole 1052 of our Code of Crlxlnal Frooedure, 

CY a.landed in 1929, reads: 

"Three Dollars ehall be 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 

the county to the Justice of the peace, for each 

criminal action triad and rlnally disposed or berore hia. provided, however, that in all oounties 

having a population of 20,000 or 1888, the Juatioe 

0r the Feace shall reoeive a trial fee or Three 

collars. such Judge or Justice shall prsaent to 

the Conrnlssloners~ Court of his county at a regular terx thereof, a .*ritten account speclrying 

each crlxlcal action in whiob ha olaiius such 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 county Treasurer in favor ot 

such Judge or Justice for the amount 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 

Texas was 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 the Snot that said cause woe 

tried, snd the State ol Texas wad represented, 

and that in his judgznent there was surricient 

evidence .in said oause to denand 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 is made, as we underatrnd it, that the Jud@e*s fee is directly deFondant upon an sotual trial and disposition Or 

CaSba in his court, snd tterer0re a motion to 

,-uash an inrormtlon or indictment before hix, 

if sustainad, results nacasaarlly in his not. 
385 

TTocorable Shelby p. 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 

under artiole 1052, O.C.P. 1925 . . . . ." 

". . . . 

*There might be suoh iasuea tried and 

disposed of In a motion to quaah 88 would 

amount to a final dlrposltion and trial of a 

osse and discharge oi the aooused. ':e can use 

no reason to doubt that in such a case the 

oounty judge would 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 complaints were: first, that the act under which the 

;rosecutlons were brought waa unoonstltutional in that the 

caption thereoi was def8Ctlve; and second, that said aot 

was unoonstitutlonal in that it embraced more than one subjeot. The motions to quash were sustained, Those are, In 

our opinion, Wauch issues tried and disposed of in a motion 

to cuash as would amount to a flnal diepoeition and trial 

of a aaae and disoharge of the aocu6ed.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 the provisiona of said ArMole 1052, C.C.P. 

This opinion, however, is limited to the state of 

raots presented in the instant caseg,and on the assumption 

ttat the precinat 0rrfoers 0s Jefferson county are oompensated 

on a fee basis. 

Yours very truly 

ATTCRW C%FAiL OF T3XAS