is obviousthat a days differenceIn age may remove an infantfrom one class Into another."(Emphasisadded)
In the Butler case, supra,the court stated "in the case of'Arrendel1 v. State, 131 S.W. 1096 (Civ.App. 1910), reviewingthe juvenilestatute, which providedexemptionsfrom certainkinds of punishmentto a person less than 16 years of age, held that one who at the time of the trial has passed the sixteenthbirthdaywas not entitledto the benefitof the statute...".
In Munger v. State, 122 S.W. 875 (Tex. Grim. 1909) it was held that one who had passed his 16 birthdayat the time the offensewas committed would not come within the terms of the statute,as the defendant,although less than 17 years of age, was more than 16.
In the Gingerichcase, supra,the SupremeCourt of Indiana stated:
"In decidingthe questionhere presented,desirabilityas, to legislationis not a questionor problem that this court can decide. We cannot sustainor set aside a measurepurely because it is desirableor undesirable. This problem is for the Legislature. The 1949 Legislatureof our State presum- ably intendedsome changeby the new act, since it changed . the.compulsoryschoolage of childrenfrom the ages of seven to sixteenyears to seven to fifteenyears, inclusive."
With the above to assist us in arrivingat the intentof the Legis- lature, we have determinedthat a child who has passedhis sixteenthbirth- day Is not subjectto the compulsoryschoolattendancelaw of the State ~of Texas. particle297, V.P.C. Article 297 of itself leads to the conclusion that compulsoryattendanceis not requiredof a child after his sixteenth birthday. We do not think that the compulsoryattendancelaw after the term has commencedhas anythingto do with a child who is more than sixteenyears of age and we do not think that the provisionsof Article298, V.P.C. re- lating to "exemptfrom attendance"can supersedeor removeor enlargeupon the clear unambigiousprovisionof Article 297, V.P.C. Therefore,it is our opinionthat as appliedto the instantcase, under the circumstances outlinedby you, a child who has attainedhis sixteenthbirthdaydoes not come within the compulsoryschool law. Hon. A. W. Walker, Page 6 (W-1056)
SUMMARY
The compulsoryschool attendancelaw with refer- ence to a child who is seven years and not more than sixteenyears of age does not apply to a child who has attainedhis sixteenthbirthday, irrespectiveof whether he reachesthe age of sixteen during a schoolterm or prior to the be- ginning of the schoolterm.
Very truly yours,
WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas
~_" .- Harris Toler Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINIONCOMMTITEB W. V. Geppert,Chainaan
Elmer McVey ' Jack Goodman
REVII3lEBPORTiil3ATTORRRf GENERAL BY: Morgan Nesbitt