HonorableW. A. Morrison CrimFnslDistrictAttorney Mihm county Cameron,Texas
Dear Sir:
opinionHo. O-l@2 Re: fa that portionof precinct5, Mllam County,which was ;~+:t,~ken from precinct 5 and added to precinct1 prior to 1933 wet or dry?
This will sCknowledgereceiptbf your letterrequestingour opinionas to the wet or dry status of l Fortionof precinctone 00 your county under the liquor laws. We quote from your letteras followe:
"On December21, 1917, l county-wide.prohibition electionwas held inXilam County. This electionwas carriedfor prohibitton.At the time of this electionboth Precinct1 and Precinctg(being,adjacent precincts)of this countywere wet. The dry statue of MilamCounty did not change until 1933,when by anothercounty-wideelec%ion Milam County becamewet.
"During~the interimbetween 1917 and 1933 a certainportionof Precinct5 w& cut therefromby the action of the CommissionersCourt of this county and added to Precinct1. From 1933 to 1936 beer was sold in Precinct5' x well aa'Precinct1. In 1936 an electionwas held in Precinct5, as the same was then definedby virtue of the action of the Commissioners' Court as aforesaid,which said election carriedfor prohibition. The questionhas now arisen as to whether or not that portionof Precinct5 which was taken from Precinct5 and added to Precinct1 prior to 1933 is wet or dry."
Following'Ithecotity-wideelectionof 1917, the whole of Milam County become dry territory,there being no sanctionfor wet precincts*ithin dry counties. See Coker v. -Kneicik(Tex.Comm. App.) 126 Tex. 440, 87 S. W. (2d) 1076, CitingEx parte Fields, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 46 S. W. 1127; Kimberlyv. Morris, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 592, 31s. W. 809: State v. Ha+vey, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 691, 33 S. W. 885; Adams vi Kelly, 17 Tex. Civ. A??. 497, 44 s. w. 529. HonorableW. A. Morrison,Page #2 (O-189)
In 1919,Section20 of Article 16 of the Texas Co?stltution.was amendedto establishprohibitionthroughoutthe State. The amendment' If 1933, authorizedthe sale of vinous and malt liquorof three and two-tenths percent (3.2%)alcholiccontentby weigl;t,but providedthat all counties and politicalsubdivisionsthereof, wherein the sale of intoxicatingliquors had been prohibitedby local optionelectionsprior to the prohibit∨' %nendment,it shoul!oonti.nieto be unlawfulto "manufacture, sell, barter or exchange"any liquorscapableof producingintoxication"unlessand until a majorityof the qualifiedvoters insaid county or politicalsubdivision thereofvoting in an electionheld for such purposeshall determineit to be lawful* * *."
When Milam County votep wet In 1933, the sale of beer becoileleg 1 except in those precinctswhck&nlocal optionhad.been l dopted,throught recinct elections.Jacksonv. State, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 140, 118 S. W. (2d) 313. There- fore;after the electionthe sale of beer becene legal In both precinct1 end precinct5, accordingto your statement.
As both precinctsoccupiedthe same st@s at the time the Commissioners' Court redefinedthe boundariesthereof)it is our opinionthat the action of the Court in changingthe areas of the precinotshad no effect insofar as the prohibitionquestionis concerned.
In 1935, Section20 of Article 16 of the Constitutionwas again amendedto permit the sale of all liquors,except in countiesand politicalsubdivisions thereofwherein local optionhad been adoptedprior to 1919. Paragraph(b) of this amendmentrequiredthe Legislatureto make provision+for local option electionsin counties,justiceprecinctsor incorporatedtowns or cities. TIN electionof 1936 in precinct5 of your countywas thereby authorized.
You' ere thereforeod. that the portionof precinct5 which was t&en from precinct5