OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Xonorable Charl& A. Toeoh 

Dotmy Auditor 

Hall ot Rsoords 

Dallas, Texas 

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

for murder. The fnots arc) eubstantlolly RQ followar 

Edward 9. P&m was lndloted for the murder of one 

Bllllan Lloyd Presley, rMoh'orime wan olle~ed to 

have oaourrod on Koverr.ber 19. 1937. Tn the first 
Aononble ChRTlsS A. '10ROh, Page 2 

trial, the aoouscU was ulven the death penalty. 

(see 126 3. X. (28)~ ,431). The reason set forth 

by the 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). 

The case via5 reversed and rcmandcd, and a .5000na 

trial vma had. 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 San Antonio 

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 whom hsvc supported 

by sworn statcfients their olaims for oompensatlon 

in the followlnk( amouIitsa: 

Dr. Sohwenkenbere; - $100.00 

Dr. 8llrcr - $ 50.00 

Dr. Anderson - 0 35.00 

and they Gtato under oath thct suoh~ohargcs arc rcasouable for the services rendered. The District AttoTncy has also made affldavlt that sooh cxpsnaea arc 

reasonable and necessary. 

The Dlstrlot Attorney he3 also m&c alloation for the paymant of blue ?rlnt ooats in the approximate eum of $ZS.OO, sod ohnrges for the servioes of a hnndwrltlne expert, to-wit: X. A. Tieaver, 

la the sum of 875.00; aloo the charges for the tueployment.ot an assoolated reporter on R habeas 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 come to Dcllas and thrown e bomb into a resldcnoe where his former assistant teeoher resided. 

The trial of thla ease resulted in a SO-year sentcnee. 

Upon the trial, it developed that the sald ITyatt denied 

hio sipkturs to a number of stAtementa and letters', 

and it mm ncoessnry to cxploy the said 7;. A. Yeaver 
346 

Honorable Charles A. Tosoh, ;Roze 3 

in oonneotion therewith. Kyatt al80 denied making oertaln etatementa ln th6 habeas oarpus proceetiin~, and it was neoosoary to have the testlmany transoribed for rebuttal purjx~ses. 3%~. X. h. 

Weaver has signed en aftldavit that the ohargea 

for hls seniaes were reasonable, and the npplication filed by Mr. Patton states that the amount Is 

reasonable end neo6mery. The 8am6 applies to the 

reporter's bill in the sum of 615.00. 

*Artiole 3912e. oeotion 19, eubeeotion (g) provldes as followsr 

'@*In addition to other 6nm5 provided in this 

seotlon,'the dfotrlat attorney or arinlnal distriot 

attorney nay be allowed by order OS the Com~Issioners~ 

Oourt or hia ooutity such amount a8 said oourt may 

deem neotsoary:to pay for, 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 

may be allo%~ed shall b.e al10weU n9on written ap?lioatlon of suoh Ul5triot attorney or arinlnal district 

attorney showing the neces5lty thararor, end provided 

further that said Cotisoioners' Court may require 

any other evldenoe that It may deem neoeseary to @how 

the neoeaaxty for any such exoonditures, and that It5 

Judgment in allwrlng or refusing to allow the same 

shall be final. No payment therefor shall be made 

except upon en itemized o?,oorn statement of ouoh expenses filed in the manner provided 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 and sworn statements from the various olalrnante. 

The Commiseioners' Court of Dallas Connty has 

deollned to allow this claim, not that it 15 not a 

just alelm, and should be paid, end wxld bu paid, if 

legal, but on the ~rouml that the pay?oent thereof 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 me rrt your serlieaf possible 

oon~eniono8 whether or Lot ths OomAaalonerts 

Court 0s Dnllae 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. Thg Dlatriot Attorney of Dnllaa County employed a transfer oonpany to 

heul the epuipxant to a plaoe of storage pending appliontlon, 

by tpe Distriot Attorney, for ah order o,P destruotion. The 

dray . e ohnrge maountsd to asme $54.90. Y. 

Tha District, 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 John L. Croathvrdit, exerolsad hla prarogatlva or,d refused to reoognlze the olain on 

the grouxd 0s irvrlidlty. 

Tha Ccmi~tisaiou of 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 viaa held bhnt said okaim ul~s not wlthln 

the purview of hrtiole 3912e, J'eotlon lb(g), Vernon*8 hnnotated 

ClvlZ Stetutas, which pov$bes that: 

"(~1. Jn addition to other aunn provided in 

thla sectfzn. tho district ettoms or orlixlnal 

&ls.tricc attorney mey be allowed by order of the 

?os.xfaslonera' Court of hla oounty suoh anount as 

m court !r,oy deem necessary to rsy for, or aid -- 

*r\aoent deoleion ol Seotion D of the Sox2isslon of 

hpeals \rhi>h has not yet been ra~orted. 
348 

Eonorable Charles A. Toe&, Fc~,e 5 

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 may be allowed 

shall be alloued upon written appliaetlon oi such 

district attorney or orlmlnel dlstriot attorney 

showing the naoceslty therefor, and provldsd further that said aotnzissloners* court may require 

any other evldenoe that it may deem neoessery to 

show the neoesslty for any auoh ergendltur’es, end 

that its judgment in allowing or reruslng to allow 

the 8ame ehall be final. No payment thereto?? shall 

be made exospt upon en itamlzsd sworn statement of 

euoh axpfx~ses filed 1~ the manor provided in this 

seation for other expenses.** (Undereoorlng ours) 

The Court 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 payment or all 

eotuel end nsoesssry expenses lnourrsd by him in 

the oonduot of his offloe, euoh as etatlonsry, 

stem@, telephone, trevellnq expensea, . . . end 

other naosssary expe~ea~* 

Then the 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 we8 without authority to allow the expendllures 88 a 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 tbe 

the 

alaira 4s e neocssarv emense of the 0rri04 0r diatriot attorney belaz without statutory authorltp 1s 

14 Rovard et ux v. R 

*i?o 

endcraon County llr3 

(writ rerueed); Jeft-Davis co& v. %vk 

et al, 192 S. 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 

and ap4olrloally eteted. Rrlerly, the rule oi elusdom generia *' 

was app1ie.d. The psrtloularized expense8 mentlone~ are stat&- 

cry, staxnps, telephone, end tmvellng expenses. 

The rule 0r idu8443i3 Renbrla alenrly appllen to seotlon (1); but it is the oplni on or 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 Or eeotlon (g) would b4 rcsnderad for naught. By its 

very tems, seotlon (g) seeks~ to provlde~sums &i nddltlon to 

thome pmvlded elsewhere in the statutes. 

::i 

: ‘.I' 

,!, 

The Distrlot Attorney 1s required to represent the 

State in orlmlnel proseoub~one. It la "his duty to do that 

whioh u ieithful and vlgllirnt dlstrlot attorney would be expeated to do, considering the magnitude and irr?portenoa or the 

0864, and that nhloh,wus essential and neoeasery to the falthtul pertoamanae or hla Otrlolal duty.” Ir the Co#mlssioners* 

Court deemed the 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, and you SO steto, we see 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 rnnp uontract 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, we remain 

Youru very truly 

ATTOR?C?XOENXRAL OF TEXAS 

WJF:BBB