.

tslluery 6, 19s9

.

.Eionorable Geo. fi. Sheppard Conqtrollor of Public AooountS 

### huustin,

Texas
Lear Sir: Gpinion !To. o-34

This office is in reosi9t 05your letter of January 4, 1999, wherein you ndvlse that uponmakin a tra~scrlpt In ca8e of chazqo of venue, t?xtclerk GS a,ccrtain county Included in the tranncrl9t a co?y of the stnto%ent of knots. you request a3oplnlon OSto whether such clerk 1s entitle$to the fee nuthorlzed 1aArtlcle 1026, Codeof Crlmlnal rrocedure, for the copy of t!m 5tetcr;cnt OSfacts so included in ti;e transcript.

For c proper ,mderstandlng of Article 570, Code of C&zl.?elProcdure, 1t 1snooeeeary to read the whole act, includlq the oaptlnn, the body **and** the emergency clhune, and tho s8=Lemay be round in the Acts ot the 41st Le&lature, 2nd Called ~sslon, p. 10, Ch. 8, as follows:

"An .':ot provldlne t.bntviLan a chnn~e of venue has bean granted in anyCriminal oau8e, the Clerk 6hall smd all ot the origlnti paper8 in said cause, together with a certified copy of the Court*6 order Clroctln~ such change o? venue, end Qoertlfied copy of **the** recognizance by the defendant, if any, to the Clerk 0r thfi Court to vddch eald ccuse v:as SC transferred; mendlng krtlole 570of t?le CO& of Crinlnal Frocedute of Texas a8revleed in 1925; and deolaring ah erzcrgenoy. "Se it enacted by the Legislature of the ;itete of Texfis:Boa. obo, H.‘shoppmd, January 6, 1939, &go e

a&otlon 1. That Art1010 570 of the Code or Criminal Prooedure of thb 

### stats of Texab a8 revlmd

- ln 1988 bo and the mm. rhall be runende~80aa to henattm read aa rollowra

‘*Article 870. Uhere an order for 6 ohmgo of venub of amyCourt in any Criminal oaube in this .State hae been **madb** the Clerk OS the Court where the ?roeeoution ir pending ebb11 meke out a oertitled oopy of ',; thb Courtlb order direotlng such ohange OSvenue, together with a oertlSiedcopy OSthe dbiendent’s reoognieanoe, it any, together v.lth all the original papers in said oause andalso a oertirlcote of the said Clerk under his ofllolal seal t!lnt such ps?ers are the popers; and all the papers on file in euld Court in said oausa; and heshall transmit the same to the Clerk ol the Court to which the venue has been ohanged. ’ mYec. 2. The faot that under the present law it 16 neoessary to mako oopiea of all original phpers in o.oauae transferreQ on ohan.:e OSvenue, thus causing agreat deal of labor with no good result ther,-from, constitute anezergenoy end a public neoeezlty thct the Constitutional Wle requlrlnr; the readins of a bill on three separate days in the %use be suspended, nnd that this hot take efteot lmmcdlately upon its passage, and it is so enaated.m It mat be admitted that the Intention OSthe Legislature is dlrfloult to asaertaln from a reedlng ot the body of the statute. The sameIn one vibw tight be susoeptlble OSthe oonatructloa thet 88300would regulrb the clerk to prepare a certified copy not only OSthe order changing the venue and the defendant’s reoogn1zano8, but also OSevery pa?er Slled In the case. &oh a strained constrdctlon, however, under hrticle Ml, Code OSCrlmlnal ?rooedure, would even require the clerk to include in hls~transcri?t e oertllted oopy OSthe duplicate tmnecript vhlch had been **filed** v:lth hiz i.nthe appeal, as well as tho statement or racts, which v;ould be utterly useless andwithout reason.

Tosay the lee&, the lan,~a,:c contained in the body OS said Article 570 aoea not so plainly anGunequivocally roqulrepm. obo. H. mabppaad, January 6, 1939, Pago 3

thb inolurlonr. of all Suoh papbrr anddooumbnta in the trbnborlpt 80 propand by thb olbrk a8to pl’OOhdb inquiry into th. lbgia**latirb purposb.** 
?rom a rbadlng ot the oaptlon andthe embrgbnoy olaubb, it moemequite olbarthat it wabthb fntbntlon 0s the Lbglbleturb to providethat the olerk should only berequired **to** prepan a certiflbd oopy otthPOrd#r ohanging venue andof the defendant*8 recognizance anda oSrtlflCatb Showing all papers in the oaze, and to forvmd suoh obrtlfled ooples endcertifloate, along With all the original papers in the case, to the clerk of the court to whlah the venue hadbeen chani;ed.

In the case of Pophe.m v. Patterson, 51 S. ‘i.:.600, the SupremeCourt stated:

"In construing statute0 it le the duty of the court to ascertain the leglelatlve Intent, rind, whensuch intent Is ones arrived at, it shouldbegiven effect; in f?ot, ouch intent is the 1~. In deterzilning the le~ielatlve intent, the court s!iould fiat 1GGk alone to any one phrase, clause, or sentence of the act, but to the entire act; and this includes the caption, the body of the aot, andthe ezereoncy clause. In. this conneotlon wehold that, evenwhenthe emersenoy olause cannot be elven efrbot ae GUCh, still1 it8 provlsione maybe looked -to if tiiey aid the court ln aacertain& the legiblatlve intent.*
he further said by Chief Justloe XcClendon, in the oaae of Perguson v. Johnson, 57b. X’

. (26) 373, (Error dleaiesed),:

“E’here literal, grammatical, or distlonary lnterprstation of statutory lnngua~e would defeat or substantially lupair effbotuatlon of lsglelatlve objective, wordlnq of statute nil1 not be ljlven oontrolllng etfeot.n
Koormanv. Terrell, 202 S. Z. 727;39Tex; Jur. 170 and 179.IOUar8, thereton, abrired t&at it wasunneoessaty 

### ror

th88tatomnt 

### 0risot8 to be

### ia0i.udOain the trawoript and the olsrkis aot retitled to the ho lnquind about.

Your8*my 

### truly,

!XL-N