. 

tslluery 6, 19s9 

. 

. Eionorable Geo. fi. Sheppard 

Conqtrollor of Public AooountS 

huustin, Texas 

Lear Sir: Gpinion !To. o-34 

This office is in reosi9t 05 your letter of January 4, 

1999, wherein you ndvlse that upon makin a tra~scrlpt In ca8e 

of chazqo of venue, t?xt clerk GS a,ccrtain county Included in 

the tranncrl9t a co?y of the stnto%ent of knots. you request 

a3 oplnlon OS to whether such clerk 1s entitle$to the fee 

nuthorlzed 1aArtlcle 1026, Code of Crlmlnal rrocedure, for 

the copy of t!m 5tetcr;cnt OS facts so included in ti;e transcript. 

For c proper ,mderstandlng of Article 570, Code of C&zl.?el Procdure, 1 t 1s nooeeeary to read the whole act, includlq 

the oaptlnn, the body and the emergency clhune, and tho s8=Le may 

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 any Criminal 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 Q oertlfied 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 570 of t?le CO& of 

Crinlnal Frocedute of Texas a8 revleed 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~ 80 aa to 

henattm read aa rollowra 

‘*Article 870. Uhere an order for 6 ohmgo of venub 

of amy Court 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 OS venue, 

together with a oertlSied copy OS the dbiendent’s 

reoognieanoe, it any, together v.lth all the original 

papers in said oause and also 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 he shall 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 OS venue, thus causing 

a great deal of labor with no good result ther,-from, 

constitute an ezergenoy 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 OS the Legislature 

is dlrfloult to asaertaln from a reedlng ot the body of the 

statute. The same In one vibw tight be susoeptlble OS the oonatructloa thet 88300 would regulrb the clerk to prepare a certified 

copy not only OS the order changing the venue and the defendant’s 

reoogn1zano8, but also OS every pa?er Slled In the case. &oh a 

strained constrdctlon, however, under hrticle Ml, Code OS Crlmlnal 

?rooedure, would even require the clerk to include in hls~transcri?t 

e oertllted oopy OS the duplicate tmnecript vhlch had been filed 

v:lth hiz i.n the appeal, as well as tho statement or racts, which 

v;ould be utterly useless and without reason. 

To say the lee&, the lan,~a,:c contained in the body OS 

said Article 570 aoea not so plainly anG unequivocally roqulre 
pm. obo. H. mabppaad, January 6, 1939, Pago 3 

thb inolurlonr. of all Suoh papbrr and dooumbnta in the trbnborlpt 

80 propand by thb olbrk a8 to pl’OOhdb inquiry into th. lbgialatirb purposb. 

?rom a rbadlng ot the oaptlon and the embrgbnoy olaubb, 

it moeme quite olbar that it wab thb fntbntlon 0s the Lbglbleturb 

to provide that the olerk should only be required to prepan a 

certiflbd oopy otthPOrd#r ohanging venue and of the defendant*8 

recognizance and a oSrtlflCatb Showing all papers in the oaze, 

and to forvmd suoh obrtlfled ooples end certifloate, along 

With all the original papers in the case, to the clerk of the 

court to whlah the venue had been chani;ed. 

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

Supreme Court stated: 

"In construing statute0 it le the duty of the court 

to ascertain the leglelatlve Intent, rind, when such 

intent Is ones arrived at, it should be given 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, and the ezereoncy clause. In. 

this conneotlon we hold that, even when the emersenoy 

olause cannot be elven efrbot ae GUCh, still1 it8 provlsione may be 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, 57 b. 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 

Koorman v. Terrell, 202 S. Z. 727; 39 Tex; Jur. 170 

and 179. 
IOU ar8, thereton, abrired t&at it was unneoessaty ror 

th8 8tatomnt 0r isot8 to be ia0i.udOa in the trawoript and the 

olsrk is aot retitled to the ho lnquind about. 

Your8 *my truly, 

!XL-N