Court Opinion

ID: 9832386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:52:24.070932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.282104
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.,
•We overrule the motion for rehearing because fully convinced that the election is valid on the ground that local option was not' carried into the new county with the territory taken from Nueces county. As to the conclusion that, under the holding of our Supreme Court in the Griffin v. Tucker Case, an election may be held in a small precinct entirely contained in a larger one in which local option obtains, we have great doubt. We would not so construe the law as an original proposition, and doubt whether the expressions contained in the opinion in said ease justify us in assuming that the Supreme Court would so hold. Giving the statute a construction which would not impute to the Legislature the intention to permit the piling up of useless and expensive elections, we think it should be held that an election, cannot be held in a small precinct entirely contained in a large precinct ’in which local option is in force. Statutes, when the terms used are ambiguous, should be construed so as to avoid absurdity, hardship, or injustice, and to favor public convenience. Sutherland on Statutory Construction, § 324. Surely the permitting of elections which there would be little or no inducement for either side to attend would be something which should not lightly be imputed to the Legislature. We therefore base our affirmance upon the ground that the election was held in territory in which there was at the time no local option law in force.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.