**OFFICE OF**  **THE AlTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS** AUSTIN

Xonorable Charl& **A.** Toeoh Dotmy 

### Auditor Hall ot Rsoords Dallas, Texas

D. Anderson, or ths Veterans' RoaplnWaoo, Taxas, the mm of $36.00.

for murder. Thefnots arc)eubstantlolly RQfollowar Edward9. P&mwas lndloted for the murder of one Bllllan Lloyd Presley, rMoh'orime wanolle~ed to have oaourrod onKoverr.ber19. 1937. Tnthe firstAononble ChRTlsSA. '10ROh,Page 2

trial, the aoouscU wasulven the death penalty. (see 126 3. X. (28)~,431). The reason set forth bythe 

## court of Crlmlncl Appeals for the reversal of said ceac was thnt oertaln lay witnesses were allowed to testily oonoernlng the insanity ot the aoouaed, (aec 9-e altatlon above set forth). Thecase via5reversed and rcmandcd, anda

## .5000na trial vmahad. After asoertalnlng that the only defense would be that or insanity, and after the aooused had plaocd sevcrnl .cxpcrt wltncsscs upon the stand, lnoludlw Dr. Johnson of the SanAntonio State Dos,pltal, and others, the District Attorney of Dallas County oallcd Dr. Sohwcnkenbcrg, an outstanding aliens& and psyohfatrlst or Dallas, Texas, Dr. Lcwls Silver of .Dcllao, Texas, end Dr. R. B. Anderson or the Veterans’ ElosDltel at h’aoo, Tcxm, as rebuttal witnesses, each of whomhsvc supported bysworn statcfients their olaims for oompensatlon in the followlnk( amouIitsa:

Dr. Sohwenkenbere; - $100.00 Dr. 8llrcr - $ 50.00 Dr. Anderson - 035.00 and they Gtato under oath thct suoh~ohargcs arc rcasouable for the services rendered. TheDistrict AttoTncy has also madeaffldavlt that sooh cxpsnaea arc reasonable and necessary. TheDlstrlot Attorney he3 also m&c alloation for the paymantof blue ?rlnt ooats in the approximate eumof $ZS.OO, sod ohnrges for the servioes of a hnndwrltlne expert, to-wit: X. A. Tieaver, la the sumof 875.00; aloo the charges for the tueployment.ot an assoolated reporter on Rhabeas oorpus prooecdlq In the Criminal District Court in oonncotion with the case ,of State v. E. R. Wyatt. He was a con-resident of Dallas County, but 1s alleged to have cometo Dcllas and thrown e bombinto a resldcnoe where his former assistant teeoher resided. Thetrial of thla ease resulted in a SO-year sentcnee. Uponthe trial, it developed that the sald ITyatt denied hio sipkturs to a numberof stAtementa and letters', and it mm ncoessnry to cxploy the said 7;. A. Yeaver

### 346

Honorable Charles A. Tosoh, ;Roze3

in oonneotion therewith. Kyatt al80 denied making oertaln etatementa ln th6 habeas oarpus proceetiin~, and it was neoosoary to have the testlmanytransoribed for rebuttal purjx~ses. 3%~.X. h. Weaverhas signed en aftldavit that the ohargea for hls seniaes were reasonable, andthe npplication filed **by** Mr. Patton states that the amount Is reasonable end neo6mery. The8am6applies to the reporter's bill in the sumof 615.00. *Artiole 3912e. oeotion 19, eubeeotion (g) provldes as followsr
'@*Inaddition to other 6nm5provided in this seotlon,'the dfotrlat attorney or arinlnal distriot attorney nay be allowed by order OSthe Com~Issioners~ Oourt or hia ooutity such amounta8 said oourt may deem neotsoary:to payfor, or ald in, the proper adninistration of

’

..the duties of such ofttioe not to exoeed lW Thousand rive Eundred t82,SOO.OOj Dollar8 in **any**one oalendar **pear:** provided, that suah amounts a5 maybe allo%~edshall b.eal10weU n9onwritten ap?lioatlon of suoh Ul5triot attorney or arinlnal district attorney showing the neces5lty thararor, end provided further that said Cotisoioners' Court mayrequire anyother evldenoe that It maydeemneoeseary to @how the neoeaaxty for anysuch exoonditures, and that It5 Judgmentin allwrlng or refusing to allow the same shall be final. Nopayment therefor shall be made except upon en itemized o?,oornstatement of ouoh expenses filed in the mannerprovided in this seotion for other expenses.'
*Mr. Patton, the Dlstriot Attorney of Dallas County, has oomplled with sold artlole 8s to the said p~rovlsions and the 0558 .nuI%bers,eta., and has also aeonred afiidavite andsworn statements from the various olalrnante. The Commiseioners' Court of Dallas Connty has deollned to allow this claim, not that it 15not a just alelm, andshould be paid, end wxld bu paid, if legal, but on the ~rouml that the pay?oentthereof is prohlblted under the recent holding of the Supreme Court of Terns in the ease of Dallas County v. Crosthwait, not yet reported.Honorable Charles A. Toaoh. ?fl~O 4

*Please &via8 merrtyour serlieaf possible oon~eniono8 whether or Lot ths OomAaalonerts Court 

### 0sDnllae County authority to alLow the hea the legal right and ebovs olaima under t$e.pmvlalona of article 391Qe, aeo. 19, aubaeo. (3). or onp other lcra of tho State of Texas. Y'or your lnfometion, the Elatrlot Attorney has not exoeeded the #?,500.00 liznitetion as sat out In eubcootion (g) .”
In the obee of Oroathwalt v. 8ta&+ oertnln alleped gasbling daviooa were seized by the dietriot attorney. ThgDlatriot Attorney of Dnllaa County employed a transfer oonpanyto heul the epuipxant to a plaoe of storage pending appliontlon, by tpe Distriot Attorney, for ahorder o,Pdestruotion. The **dray**

.e ohnrge maountsdto asme$54.90. Y. ThaDistrict, Attorney properly mde hpplloation to the Comiaaioneral Court for pnyrxnt of aaid ulaia aRainat tha oounty. The Comdtmioaeral Colirt approved lt end provided for payment out ol a fund set n5iGe puxuucnt to the proviaiona of Artlole 39lce, aeatlon 19(g), Vbrnon's ¬ated Civil Setutes. ?'bo oounty ukitor, one JohnL. Croathvrdit, exerolsad hla prarogatlva or,drefused to reoognlze the olain on 

## the grouxd 

## 0s irvrlidlty.

ThaCcmi~tisaiouof A2pcala upheld, the nuditor’a poeitlan; stntlnfi a5 e reason, the feat that the law expreaely plaars the duty to solze &lle& gaxbllne equipment upon the
peaoa offk?era, and not upon the LlaLriat Attorney nor hta ofrio0. booordingiy, it viaaheld bhnt said okaim ul~snot wlthln the purview of hrtiole 3912e, J'eotlon lb(g), Vernon*8 hnnotated ClvlZ Stetutas, whichpov$bes that:

"(~1. Jn addition to other aunn provided in thla sectfzn. tho district ettoms or orlixlnal &ls.tricc attorney meybe allowed by order of the ?os.xfaslonera' Court of hla oounty suoh anount as m court !r,oydeemnecessary to rsy for, or aid --

*r\aoentdeoleion ol Seotion Dof the 

## Sox2isslon of hpeals \rhi>hhas not yet been ra~orted.

### 348

Eonorable Charles A. Toe&, Fc~,e5

in, she crontr adminlstratlon of ths duties of 3 h offloe, not to exoesd l%o Thousand Bl Hgdrsd (~2,500.00] Dollars in any one oalE:der year; provided, that euch amounts as maybe allowed shall be alloued uponwritten appliaetlon oi such district attorney or orlmlnel dlstriot attorney showing the naoceslty therefor, and provldsd further that said aotnzissloners* court mayrequire any other evldenoe that it maydeemneoessery to showthe neoesslty for any auoh ergendltur’es, end that its judgment in allowing or reruslng to allow the 8ameehall be final. Nopayment thereto?? shall be madeexospt upon en itamlzsd sworn statement of euoh axpfx~ses filed 1~the manor provided in this seation for other expenses.** (Undereoorlng ours) TheCourt In the Crosthwalt aase quoted that portion of Artlole 3912e, aeotion 19(g), whloh is underlined, euprn, and ~further, a aertaln portion or seotlon (1) or the-same Artlola whioh la a.~followsr,

“And euoh 0rfIoer~ shall be entitled to rile oleime for and lssua warrants in paymentor all eotuel endnsoesssry expenses lnourrsd by himin the oonduot of his offloe, euoh as etatlonsry, stem@, telephone, trevellnq expensea,

. . . end other naosssary expe~ea~* Thenthe Court found that:
93~the llmitationo expressed in the next above quoted portion or the statute the dlstrlat attorney end ths oommlssloners oourt of Dallas county were limited to the kind or axpendlturse mentioned in eel6 statuta. Bince seiizura or &ucbling devises is the duty of peaoa officers and‘snot the c?uty of the dietriot ettorney and the statutes overnlnf: **the** expenditures of the 6liiae~6Taistrio

~~~~~~~o

’

~~~‘

~~~‘~h’~~~t~~~. g;af$%i. Ri 1 oounty we8without authority to allow the expendllures 88a nsoessary expense of the office of diat. . .’
Honorable Charles A. Toaoh, Pags 6

I, I, !I .: trlot attorney oi Dallao County. Casey et al v.

aate. 289 6. b 420 \rrit r4tused) Therdore * ectlon of 

## tte o&aleslonere aourt 1; al.lowltza tbethe alaira 4s e neocssarv emense of the 

## 0rri04 0r diatriot attorney belaz without statutory authorltp 1s 14 Rovard et uxv. R *i?o endcraon County llr3

(writ rerueed); Jeft-Davis co& v. %vk et al, 192S. U. 291 (writ rbfua4d~.n (Undersoorlng o&x). _,' The Casey ease, cited by the Court. in the above quote& portlon ol lta aeolalon, held, in erreat, that the general phrase "end other neoeeeary epzense" conprehended only -z things or the sam kind or olass as those xor4 partfculerly I andap4olrloally eteted. Rrlerly, the rule oi elusdom generia *'
wasapp1ie.d. Thepsrtloularized expense8 mentlone~ are stat&- cry, staxnps, telephone, end tmvellng expenses.

The rule 

## 0ridu8443i3 Renbrla alenrly appllen to seotlon (1); but it is the oplni onor this Department that the oourt., in the Cmethweit deoislon, did not intend to iliigl-y th4t the entire statute would be qualliled by that rule or statutory oonstruatlon. If that were true, thr express purpose Oreeotlon (g) would b4 rcsnderad for naught. Byits very tems, seotlon (g) seeks~to provlde~sums &i nddltlon to thomepmvlded elsewhere in the statutes. ::i :‘.I' ,!,

TheDistrlot Attorney 1s required to represent the State in orlmlnel proseoub~one. It la "his duty to do that whioh u ieithful andvlgllirnt dlstrlot attorney would be expeated to do, considering the magnitude and irr?portenoa or the 0864, andthat nhloh,wus essential andneoeasery to the falthtul pertoamanae or hla Otrlolal duty.” Ir the Co#mlssioners* Court deemedthe expenses enumerated in your letter neoessary or that they sided fn the proper edmlaietretlon of tha dlstr1ot attorney's dutlea than, 1I the other atetutory requlrements have been mat, andyou SOsteto, wesee no reason why those expense items should not be allowed out or the $2,500.00 

## runa provided ror in seotlon (g),

This does not mean that a dlstrlot attornay rnnpuontract to pay so-oalled experts any mars than othar witnesses, exoept In those inetenoea where auoh wltneesas have had to expend efrort In order to qualiltp themselves as experts in a pertlaulilar oa54.Honorable Oherles A. Toeoh, Page 7

Trusting bb.at'the forsgofng fully an8weru Your lnpulry, weremain Youru very truly
ATTOR?C?XOENXRAL

OFTEXAS

WJF:BBB