EA ORNEY GENERAL 

OF-XAS 

March 23, 1962 

Honorable W. G. Wallev. Jr. Opinion No. WW-1284 

Acting Criminal Dist&t Attorney - 

Courthouse Re: 

Beaumont, Texas 

Dear Mr. Walley: 

Your letter requesting an opinion 

as follows: 

Whether the 

Commissioner's 

Court of Jefferson 

County has the authority to retain legal 

counsel to defend 

certain members of a 

Grand Jury in cases 

brought against them 

under the stated facts. 

reads in part 

"On or about the 1st day of October, 1961, 

the Criminal District Court of Jefferson 

County and the 136th Judicial District Court 

each empaneled a Grand Jury for Jefferson 

County, Texas. These Grand Juries served 

until the 5th day of December, 1961, when at 

such time the Judges of the above-mentioned 

Courts discharged each Grand Jury subject to 

recall by written orders duly filed with the 

District Clerk of Jefferson County in accordance with Article 372, C.C.P. Each Grand 

Jury was notified of such action in open 

court and was thereby formally discharged by 

the Court subject to recall. The Criminal 

District Court Grand Jury at such session, 

made it known to the Judge of said Court 

that they had two indictments and a report 

which they desired to return before being 

discharged. The Judge of the Criminal District 

Court then and there refused to accept said 

report and indictments and discharged the 

Grand Jury subject to recall. Eleven members 

of this Grand Jury then proceeded back to 

the Grand Jury room and subsequently released 

a statement to the press. 

"A short time after the release of this 

statement, eleven members of this Grand Jury 

were sued for libel and indicted by the 136th 
Hon. W. G. Walley, Jr. page 2 (w-1284) 

District Court Grand Jury for divulging 

grand jury proceedings predicated upon 

this released statement. 

"The Criminal District Court Grand 

Jury has now requested the Commissioners' 

Court of Jefferson County to employ 

legal counsel in defense of the above 

suit and indictments. 

"We now request an opinion of your 

office on whether or not the Commissioners' 

Court has authority to retain legal counsel 

to defend members of a Grand Jury in suits 

brought against them under the above alleged 

facts." 

A Commissioners' Court is a court of limited juriadiction and has only such powers as are conferred upon 

it by the Constitution and laws of this State by express 

terms or necessary implication. Hill v. Sterrett, 252 

SW2d 766 (Civ. App. 1952, error ref. n.r.e.); Canales 

-p-Ah Lau lin 147 Tex. 169, 214 SW2d 451 (1948)iess 

ountv v. State, 127 Tex. 343, 92 SW2d 1011 (1936); Roper 

v. Hall, 280 SW 289 (Civ. App. 1925). 

It has been repeatedly held by this office that 

the Commissioners' Court has the power and authority to 

employ attorneys in the prosecution of its claims and 

suits and pay for such services out of the General Fund 

of the county where the county, as a whole, is interested 

in and affected by such proceedings. Attorney General's 

Opinions V-995 (1950); V-232 (1947r; O-4955 (1942); and 

WW-662. . 

In Attorney General's Opinion V-232 (1947), this 

office held that a County Commissioner was not entitled 

to reimbursement from the county for his attorney's fees 

in defending a suit against him and his bonding Company 

for damages arising from the Commissioner's negligence ,in 

failing to repair a county bridge. At first the county 

was not named as a party to such suit. Later the county 

was named as defendant and the Commissioners' Court employed 

the County Attorney in defending the suit against the county. 

The Commissioners' Court was held to be authorized to employ 

and pay the attorney for his services in defending the county 

after the county was made a party to the suit, the reason 

being that the county as a whole then became interested in 

and affected by the suit. 
. . 

Hon. W. G. Walley, Jr. page 3 (WW-1284) 

In a well reasoned Attorney General's Opinion 

O-4955, citing the City National,Bank of Austin v. 

Presidio, case, 26 SW 775 (lS94) it was held that 

the Commissioners' Court could h&e an attorney to 

represent the Commissioners' Court as proceedings 

were instituted which affected their official acts 

and the county, as a whole, was interested in and 

affected by such proceedings. An individual employee of the county was not entitled to counsel 

as he was sued in his individual capacity, and such 

suit didn't interfere with his official acts. 

In the present case neither Jefferson County 

nor the Commissioners' Court of that county wereever 

named as defendants. The design and effect of the 

suit against the Grand Jury members is not to obstruct 

or control the performance of their official acts, 

but to recover damages for alleged acts contrary to 

the legal performance of their duties. In view of 

the foregoing, it cannot be said that the county as a 

whole was interested or affected by such a suit. Hence, 

in our opinion the Commissioners' Court is not .authorised to appoint an attorney for members of the Grand 

Jury in defending such suit. 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioners' Court of Jefferson 

County is not authoriaed to hire an attorney 

to defend the Grand Jury members since the 

county as a whole is not interested or 

affected. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

1RS:bjh 

APPROVED: 

-d Irwin R. Salmanson 

Assistant Attorney General 

OPIXIOH COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

John.Reeves 

ArthurSand1i.n 

Henry Braswell 

Virgil Pullism 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Houghton Brownlee, Jr.