Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1941 )

>’
‘\ (.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
IionorabloGoorgoH. shoppard
gggol~xe? Pub110Aaoountl
,
Dear sir:
mnanl~," for the 8ovonteendays of
Judge oerulor
.
"A better expletion of this might be had
hoiu a letter +ldreased to thle department by
Judge Conner Deoember 5. I am attaehlng hfs lot-
t&r h&eto.’
.
m0 r6m wJ3 ohich tbn 0zeip 0f adge co~lnerIS baas-
ad two 8ot out In t&o folloWzigportionof his lettw to you cf
Deoembor5, lg41, lihlohyou have aubmlttcd to UIII
*. . . .
Work J*o Culwr rotvrnod, I roat owes 01th
hlnthopondingm8ttoreandturncdowrtohlm
grQundssot r0e.h had to do lfi.th allegedBLleoora-
duut of the jfp~. Thla prolIontod 8 awv upout
oftheeauetionejud@oouldhearltarvell
68 MOthor. A.tl EUUh 5SttOPS WFO 1Oett With &Ld@
Culver and X did IPO further *ark 00 tJmm. But he
did mt we t0 pass a~ ~otlona rw SW ta.z~,
nb0tiw rw j-t, mti05a fw jagma IIOP
obetantavwdlato, eta., o to de8ldaoaeoe op
briefs whem I lad kowd the ultnmsns mad the
or~lo?~ac~n~. There VW Qno Qaso, the
trial of vhloh boforo mo conwwd an cntIro wok,
the ovldoncobolng aqpletod four &yv before
Judge Cvzwr’t rotuvn. Yf lmW’rn lRpwt8at 68w
aad the low ro4#aort6apamlrlllcpto rile
vr1ttanIF --
tlaa vlth ``~Y*``;2~ i%clrkod
wwn#on days 8stor Jut&6 calwr’s Toturn* I
rtlll ha80 SQU) stotovontoof fact to 8ppmw*
s6mefsnaags oi fnot and oQtmlwlQns 0s l8v to
f&10, 8d 8c4m i!cirma ordalw to oator ia @mm!
uhlch I trlod,but I de nQt intotad to proronturj
rlwthw Q&llB al that 8amant, e&nco I can handlo
euch mattoW lag -0 tlmo.*
BasodupQ.nthofa6tlJOoa~lnyO~let~ ofmo-
ember 8th aad tho above qwtcd ~tfon of &a* Connorsletter
of Deoomberfjth,~ you hrro roqaostedthat thle dopart-nt advlro
you vhothcror nf3tyou cro authorlrrod to iwuo varmattoJ~e
banor fop the eowntoon d8p1 of sorvlcaporSormedmbsequont
to the roturn oP the rogvlardlstlpictjudge of the 17th Mstrlat
court.
Artlole6821 or VeraonarReole%dCivil Statutesof
Toxca provider8a Pollwar
Bono-ble George 8. Sheppard, page 3
"The &lad** di rpeeieljudgescomiraioned
by the Governor in obediezme to Sectlcn 11, A&l&e
5, of the Constitution, or elected by the practio-
ing lavyera or egroed upon by tho panties a@ provld-,
ed by lav,~.``shallbe detemlned and pald 8~ follouar
‘1. ~JSeah
spoolal /u&w &all raceioe the emw
oacupiab ln ,$m~
those ommfreionod by. the 00
colw the ‘tama pay ai, dirtriot judge8 for srery duy
they may be necerca~llyoccupied In going to and
retucnug frcua the plaoe yhoro they may be requlr-
od. to ho+3 oourtr .~
a. . l
A
.
Y&u uLl1 note &et. Soct1o.n 1 of Artiale 6521, above
rst forth,~ provLdes .thst, a ~+@eclel judge &all receive oompsn-
;,a&ion ‘for every dag that he may be oooupied In perfoaUng
ths~dutlor Of :/edge. We cbnot .believe that the Legiclatnre
ln~encotlng thlw, .ArCiole intended that ‘6 speoial judge should
-only reaofvo orrPtpenaationfar serv~ose periopmd doping tho ab-
conce of .Y&Orogulw jud&e vhere the wmlcee periormed by,-the
epoalal j@ge.- rubrotauont to the rsttrm~ of the regular Judge
we nccosrary end jpopw In the orderly di*ppeition of aatteri
* pr hm duriag the abasnw 02 the rogylasr fudge. we’do’,not
.thlnk the r&W.ot a wgialw judge,vLlZ have the leg8l efteat
‘Tiqoust jtPlsdlct*t+t of the epealul juIge .to aomj2ete the .trlal
.'-Or
the OCFO In vhiah.he%I!then engaged,or dlveet.hia~of.:ati-
thorlty to hoar ,~tiZons, cw to do r.wh other thing@ as. are’.lp~o-
‘eila8ry. to make~ox?darly,diaporFtloh of the mattore pfiieh haie I:~‘?.
‘:b@oo tlndertake~%y~him. Jchdon v. Bueaey, (‘3~. Agp.,.~oxar~)
wit refwed, .95 9, N, {2d) 990.
Aa we underslxnd the faata prerertted by you the *or-
tlaos, performed by Judge Conner, the. epeaial judge, subeaqwmt
to the wtum of. the rogula~ judge and for vhlch he aeeks.com-
ponsatloa vere paacing on u&ions for neu tPlb1, motions Per
ju@mnt, motloba foe judgment non obstaace verdicto, hearing
oral arguments, studyfng smitten briefs aud ergunent?, approving
statements of fmt end filing findlngs oi fact and concluslone
OS lau in cases heard by him during the absence of the Fagt1l8r
diatrlixt judge.
.
i
. . l’ .
Qeorge H. Sheppard,page 4
The law 18 we31 settledin this St&e that a regular
WWJ and a mpecl+ljudgsAoaph@d uourt at the uame t+e. Xhd-
rlll v. Jeaklna, 40 S.Y. (al) 961; Nlagma Ineurmns Co. v. Idim,
73 Tex, 641, 3l 8.w. 1024 BedfoM, et al. v. Stone,43 Ter.
Clr. App..200,95 S.Y. 1066J EmUX.r. ~M&P~, 73 Tex. 150,
ll S.Y. l2lf ~llvor v. state, 70 Pox. crlw Rap. 140, 159 S.W.
235. It is a244 4ettl4dia thlr 8tat4 that uhlle a specialfudge
Is hearingthe 4ase he va8 el4atodto to try the regularjudge
oaa owtlnae to try other oaeea oa the d-et. HamlltanY. State,
74 Tex. CrsJu,Rep. 219, 168 S.Y. 536.
Vnder the raotr here pnaaated the aeroloerpeviomad
bxthe sp6aUl judge wbmqxoattd Wmrsttwaoftlaem@ax’
jadg4 w4n La 04maeotloawith oa*e* pretrented to him duriag the
E*hzz t$e~gular j-e ln ubloh all or the erideaae had
Under there raute we do not belleve that.lt
aouldba r#w~osrsbiyaontended that Ure&ular judgeoould
properlypro6eedwltlrttmu&tlmatediupoaitlonof the aame in.
pa~8f3t.g ~g0n mti0m f0r mv tad, mu- r0r jadeppsat,
eta.,
uhleh altlamtedlmpo8ltlonvoald luaewarlly etall a kzkouledge
faith4radaaad alrouMtaae4r kaowloalyto the rpoeialju@a.
Themime to holdthat JurlmUatioaofthe rpeoialjudgocemml
regardUse of th4 olroumdaaoe~ qua return of the regularjudge
uoadd not kqly reaalt la 0aUueloa. bat alra iajwtlee.
lb alw tb4nfon or tb4 4plaioxiaadyou are a0 advilled
~thatth4 8emloee pertomed by Jadga Coaae~ am outllwd la the
porti0n0f h-h letter 0r ltk3ue St 1941, abeve ~Pated.wore
newamry mad proper serwbea to be perrarmedby hla mab~wat
t0 the rotura 0r the regularjudge aad tbst dariag twh t2me he
warn%wupkd la roepinethe dnu4e or judg``,~ ulthla the pur-
vlmr of hlu414 6.v1, and am euithuould be entitledto ocuupma-
uab r0r ev4ry day
- - that he vaa oaeupud in wrrw iuch see
ricer.
This 4l#aloa,hol?e~er,
1s natrist4d to the racmal
rltuatlonpFe4stltmIby
thelettsrs puMedh4rsin.