ENERAL.

Aun-ra~.T~xas 78711

December 29, 1971
Hon. F. B. Lloyd, Jr. District Attorney P. 0. Box 965 Alice, Texas 78332 Opinion No. M- 1030 Re: Dothe provisions of S. B. 132, Acts 62nd Leg., R. S., 1971, ch. 831, p. 2535, which authorizes various
Dear Mr. Lloyd: courts to punish for contempt of court, apply to Commissioners Courts? Your recent request for an opinion asks for an answer to the following question:

Do the provisions of S. B. 132, Acts 62nd Leg., R. S., 1971, ch. 831, p. 2535, which authorizes various courts to punish for contempt ofcourt, apply to Commissioners Courts? Your attention is direct to the caption or title of Senate Bill 132 (Article 1911a, V.C. S.)which provides as follows:

“AnAct relating tothe power and authority of certain courts, to punishment for contempt and to powers ofjustices ofthe peace; amending Article 2386, Revised Civil Statutes ofTexas, 1925; amendi Article 45. 12, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1 5; repealing Articles 1736, 1826, 1911 and 1955, and Section 2, Article 4.04, Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1965; ~*
.” (Emphasis added) Section 4of Senate Bill 132 amends Article 2386, Revised Civil Statutes ofTexas, 1925, which confers uponjustices ofthe peace certain powers including the power to punish for contempt; Section 5ofthe Bill

-5025-. ,

Honorable F. B. Lloyd, Jr., page 2 (M-1030)
amends Article 45.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1965, which authorizes a recorder ofa corporation court to punish for contempt; Section 6ofthe Bill repeals Article 1736, which authorizes the Supreme Court to punish for contempt; Article 1911 which authorizes the district court to punish for contempt; and Article 1955 which authorizes the county court to punish for contempt. Additionally Section 2ofArticle 4.04, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1965, which authorizes the Court ofCriminal Appeals ofTexas to punish for contempt was also repealed. It is noted, however, that Section 2ofSenate Bill 132 provides in part:

“(a) Every court other than ajustice court or

municipal court may punish by a fine ofnot more than $500 or by confinement in the county jail for not more than 6months, or both, any person guilty ofcontempt ofthe court;

“(b) Ajustice court or municipal court may punish by afine ofnot more than $200 or by confinement in the county or city jail for not more than 20days, or both, any person guilty ofcontempt ofthe court;
. . .” (Emphasis added) Article 2351, Subdivision 13, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, expressly authorizes a Commissioners Court ofany county to:

“Punish contempts by fine not to exceed twentyfive dollars or by imprisonment not to exceed twenty-four hours, and in case offine, the party may be held incustody until the fine is paid. ” It is awell settled canon of statutory construction that when the caption or title of an act specifies the nature ofthe amendment, the body ofthe act must conform. Likewise, the body ofthe act cannot contain an amendment to a section ofaprevious act where the title omits any mention ofthat section. 53Tex. Jur. 2d 111-112, Statutes, Sec. 61, and cases there cited. Applying these rules so as to harmonize the title and the body of the act, we conclude that the “certain courts” referred to in the caption

-5026-Honorable F. B. Lloyd, Jr., page 3 (M-1030)

that were the subject ofamendments or repeal were only those courts exercising strictly judicial powers as distinguished from a county commissioner’s court, which is primarily an administrative body, such as a city council. Wenote that the statute dealt with “municipal courts” but notthe city councils. The Act inquestion contains noclause ofgeneral repeal but only clauses of specific repeal, which ‘lr ~D constitutes adeclaration that other acts and provisions shall remain inforce on the theory that the legislature would have also mentioned them had it intended their repeal. ” 53 Tex. Jur. 2d 142, Statutes, Sec. 96. The question presented is whether the Act impliedly repeals Article 2351, Subd. 13. Implied repeal is a matter of legislative intent, and an act is not deemed to repeal a statute when the legislative intent is to the contrary, even though its words would have that effect iftaken strictly and grammatically. 53 Tex. Jur. 2d 147-148, Statutes, Sec. 100. The applicable rule is stated as follows: “Repeal ofstatutes by implication is never favored or presumed. Arepeal byimplication will be adjudged only ifthis result is inevitable or was plainly intended bythe legislature, and ifthe implication is clear, necessary, irresistible, and free from reasonable doubt. Ifby any reasonable construction two acts or statutory provisions can be reconciled and so construed that both may stand, onewill not be held to repeal the other.

. e *” 53 Tex. Jur. 2d 152, Statutes, Sec. 102. Inview ofthe foregoing considerations, we have concluded that Senate Bill 132 did not impliedly repeal Article 2351, Subdivision 13. Therefore, your question is answered in the negative. Since Senate Bill 132 does not amend or repeal Article 2351, Subdivision 13, contempts before the Commissioners Court are still controlled bythe express provisions ofthe latter article. SUMMARY

Senate Bill 132, Acts 62nd Leg., R. S., 1971, ch. 831, pa 2535 (Article 1911a, V.C.S.), which authorizes various courts to punish for contempt -5027-Honorable F. B. Lloyd, Jr., page 4 (M-1030)
ofcourt, does not apply to Commissioners Courts. Contempts before the Commissioners Courts are still governed bythe provisions ofArticle 2351, Subdivision 13, V.C. S.

D C. MARTIN Prepared by Bill Flanary Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman Austin Bray Kenneth Nordquist Robert Lemens Sally Phillips John Reeves SAM MCDANIEL Staff Legal Assistant ALFRED WALKER Executive Assistant NOLA WHITE First Assistant

-5028-