The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-01-11
WARRANT MUST BE PAID
Decision Of Court Of Appeals In Farmer VS.,
Shaw, from Harris County.
COUNTY JUDGE ENTITLED TO 50 PER DAY
while Acting as Member Of the
commissioners Court Despite "a
salary for Eek OfHcio Services.

ment OF the district court of Harris coun.
~ In John Farmer. county treasurer. VS.,
W. N. Shaw. from Harris The following
is the text of the courts opinion:
This is an action by appellee in the ma
ture OF a mandamus proceeding to compel
the appellant. as county treasurer to pay
a warrant drawn in favor OF appellee by
order OF the commissioners court for the
sum OF Sl17. which he was entitled TO and
earned at the rate of SO day while he
was sitting as member OF the commits
sioners court. The trial court granted the
relief asked by the appellee from which
| judgment the county treasurer appealed.
Inc conclusions OF fact and law of the
| rlal court are as follows w. n. shaw,
plaintiff. was the county Judge OF Harris
county, Texas, from November IA, 1896. to
November 81. lseS, and as such did serve
nity-ninc days as a member OF the COM
missioners court of said county That
the county commissioners court on Novem-
4 Der is. 1898, ordered the clerk OF the
/ county court TO issue a warrant upon the
county treasurer to w. n. Shaw for SLIT,
being compensation for fifty-nine days
services at So per day, the same to be
paid out Of the general fund OF the coun-
ty. That defendant, John Farmer, is the
county treasurer OF Harris county, Texas,
and has held said office for more than five
1 years, and as sucn county treasurer. had
| on hand, and now has on hand Ia the
general fund, sufficient money To pay SAID
warrant for SIT; that plaintiff. W. N,
Shew. after receiving said warrant for
/ Sl1l. presented same TO John Farmer.
county treasurer, for payment, which said
John Farmer refused to pay. stating that
he doubted the legality OF the right OF the
county Judge TO receive 50 per diem ror
acting as a member OF the commissioners
court That thereafter, said John Farmer,
| county treasurer referred back TO the
commissioners court for their directions
the legality OF said warrant aud his right
TO pay the same, whereupon the commits
sioners court adopted an order command
ing John Farmer as county treasurer, to
pay said warrant to w N. Shaw out of
the general fund, whereupon said W. N
Shaw presented said warrant to John
Farmer, county treasurer, and requested
him to register, classify and pay said
warrant, which said Farmer refused to DO
That W. n. Shaw drew a salary OF s125
per month during his term OF office as ex
ofico salary.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
!. A county judge when acting as a
member OF the commissioners court Is
entitled TO receive 81 per day for each day
he is engaged in holding term of said
commissioners court; provided he shall
receive no pay for holding more than one
special term per month.
2 Although a county judge receives a
salary for ex-ofiicio services. he is never
theless entitled to 50 per day for each day
he serves RS member OF the commits
sioners court.
s. That the salary provided for in ar
tce 245Q was intended TO be supplement-
AIRY to the fees expressly provided by other
articles OF tho statutes for particular SER
vices
The ex-offcio salary mentioned in Tue
conclusions OF fact is based upon an or
der OF the commissioners court OF Harris
county as follows: Monday February
"a, S9s. ex-oficio salary county Judge.
On motion It Is ordered that the county
Judge be and he Is hereby allowed the sum
Of Sl500 per annum, commencing Decem-
Der !. 1897 to be paid monthly out Of
the general fund. for presiding over the
commissioners court, ordering elections
and making returns thereof, hearing and
determining civil causes and transacting
all other official business not otherwise
provided for. Provided for by article
2450"
We approve the conclusions of law
reached by the trial court. The appellant
contends that the appellee, as county
judge, having received the sum OF $125
per month as ex-offcio salary, is not en-
titled to the compensation Of SO a day
allowed by article 2466 of the Revised
Statutes to members Of the commissioners
court when serving as court This ar
ticle reads as follows:
"Each county commissioner and the
county judge, when acting as such, shall
receive from the county treasury TO be
paid on the order Of the commissioners
court, the sum OF SO for each day he is
engaged in holding a term OF the conf
missioners court, but such commissioners
shall receive no pay for holding more
than one special term OF their court per
month
Article 245O, which authorizes the COM
missicners court to allow the county Judge
q salary for ex-ofticio services, Is as fol-
lows
For presiding over the commissioners
court. ordering elections and making re
turns thereof hearing and determining
civil causes, and transaciing all other Of
fetal business not otherwise provided for,
the county judge shall receive such SAL
AIRY from the county treasury as may be
allowed him by order Of the commissions
ers court
We do not think there is conflict be-
tween these two statutes. and II is APP
parent to US that the purpose WIS TO al
low the county Judge an extra eompensa-
ton as presiding officer OF the commits
ticle Pass, he should receive compensation
as member OF the commissioners court.
That article expressly includes the county
Judge as entitled to the So a day com
pensatlon when he IS engaged in holding
term OF court. BY virtue OF the consiitu
ton and the statutes hereunder he Is
made a member OF the commissioners
court, and the purpose Of the law evil
IDENTIFY was 10 entltle him 10 compensation
for the same services rendered by other
commissioners ard an additional COM
pensation for presiding over that body.
The legislature evidently thought that
the county Judge, as the presiding OFF,
Ger. was burdened with more duties whea
sitting with the commissioners court than
the commissioners and the purpose was
evidently. by article 2450, to allow him
some compensation for these extra sery-
ices. Viewing the two sections OF the
law in this way, We think they can be
reconciled.
We find no error in the judgment and It
Is affirmed.
Associate Justice Key did not sit IN this
case.
Court mt BeIIviIis.