Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1967 )


Menu:
  •                         April 10, 1967
    Hon. Charles F. Herring                  Opinion No. M-54
    Chairman, Jurisprudence Committee
    Senate                                   Re:   Validity of Senate Bill
    Austin, Texas                                  317 of the 60th Legis-
    lature authorlzlng Justices
    of the Peace to exchange
    Dear Senator Herring:                          benches.
    You have requested our opinion on the validity of Senate
    Bill 317 of the 60th Legislature. Senate Bill 317 reads as follows:
    "A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
    AN ACT
    "Authorizing justices of the peace of
    the same county to hold court for each
    other and to exchange benches; amending
    Chapter 2, Title 45, Revised Clvll Statutes
    of Texas, 1925, by adding a new Article
    2393a; and declaring an emergency.
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TMAS:
    9ectlon 1. Chapter 2, Title 45, Revised
    Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, is amended by
    adding a nex Article 2393a to read as follows:
    "'Article 2393a. Exchange of Benches, A
    justice may hold court for any other justice whose
    precinct Is In the same county; and the justices
    of a county may exchange benches whenever they
    deem It expedient.'
    ltSec.2. The importance of this legislation
    and the crowded condition of the calendars in both
    Houses create an emergency and an imperative public
    necessity that the Constitutional Rule requiring
    - 246 -
    Hon. Charles F. Herring, page 2 (M-54)
    bills to be read on three several days In each
    House b$ suspended, and this Rule is hereby sus-
    pended.
    Section 18 of Article V of the Constitution of Texas
    provides as follows:
    *Each organized county in the State now
    or hereafter existing, shall be divided from
    time to time, for the convenience of the people,
    into precincts, not less than four and not more
    than eight. Divisions shall be made by the Com-
    missioners Court provided for by this Constltu-
    -into four commissioners precincts in
    each of which there shall be elected by the quali-
    fied voters thereof one County Commlssioner, who
    shall hold his office for four years and until
    his successor shall be elected and qualified. The
    County Commissioners so chosen, with the County
    Judge as presiding officer, shall compose the
    County Commissioners Court, which shall exercise
    such powers and jurisdiction over all county business,
    as Is conferred by this Constitution and the law!
    of the State, or as mav be hereafter orescribed.
    (Emphasis added.)~    "
    Section 19 of Article V of the Constitution of Texas
    provides as follows:
    "Justices of the peace shall have jurisdic-
    tion in criminal matters of all cases where the
    penalty or fine to be imposed by law may not be
    more than _for
    _-two hundred dollars, and .in civil
    matters of all cases where the amount in controversy
    Is two hundred dollars or less, exclusive of in-
    terest, of which exclusive original jurisdlctton
    is not given to the District or County Courts;
    and such other jurisdiction. criminal and civil,
    as may be provided by law.,under such regulations
    as may be prescribed by law; and appeals to the
    County Courts shall be allowed in all cases decided
    - 247 -
    Hon. Charles F. Herring, page 3 (M-54)
    in Justices' Courts where the judgment IS
    for more than twenty dollars exclusive of
    costs; and in all criminal cases under such
    regulations as may be prescribed by law. And
    the justices of the peace shall be ex officio
    notaries public. And they shall hold their
    courts at such times and places as may be pro-
    vided by law." (Emphasis added.)
    In discussing territorial jurisdiction of Justices of
    the Peace, it was held in Brown v. State, 
    118 S.W. 139
    (Tex.
    Crlm. 1909);
    nWe are of the opinion that the intention
    of this statute is, in the case of the absence
    of the justice of the peace, to authorize and
    confer jurisdiction on the nearest justice of
    the peace in the county to perform the duties
    of such absent justice. The statute, however,
    does not confer power upon such nearest justice
    to go outside of his precinct, and to the office
    of such absent justice, and there perform such
    duties, but contemplates that the duties shall
    be performed in the precinct of such nearest
    justice. Crawford v. Saunders, 
    9 Tex. Civ. App. 225
    , 29 s.w. 102.   If this is correct, and It
    follows the authorities in this state from the
    beginning, and if the justice of one precinct
    cannot go Into the precinct of another justice
    of the peace and Issue process In that precinct
    returnable before another justice, then the
    reasoning Is infinitely stronger why the neigh-
    boring justice cannot go into the domain of an
    adjoining or other justice precinct where there
    is a resident authorized and qualified justice
    of the peace, and institute or hold courts of
    inquiry, under Code Cr. Proc. art. 941. The
    visiting justice of the peace would have no
    such authority under any provision of law in
    Texas. This construction of our constitutional
    and legislative provisions seems to have been
    followed from practically the beginning of our
    jurisprudence.‘ We are not discussing how far
    the Legislature may go in fixing the territorial
    urisdiction of justices of the peace. We are
    only discussing the statutes as we find them
    enacted.   (Emphasis added.)
    - 248 -
    Hon. Charles F. Herring, page 4 (M-54)
    Thus while Brown v. State establiahea the principle
    that under existing law’ “ohe Justice of the Peace as such cannot
    sit in the precinct of another Justice even when the other Justice
    is absent” (118 S.W. at 141), the Court did not intend to S];;ey$ne
    the authority of the Legislature to prescribe otherwise.        . .
    at 
    142, supra
    .
    In Stewart v. Smallwood, 
    102 S.W. 159
    (Tex.Civ.App. 1907),
    the Court made the following observation:
    “It is provided by article 1566, Rev. St.
    1895, that ‘during the period of such vacancy
    in the office of Justice of Peace, or whenever
    the Justice of the Peace in any precinct shall
    be absent, or unable or unwilling to perform
    the duties of his office, the nearest Justice
    of the Peace in the county may perform the duties
    of the office until such vacancy shall be filled,
    or such absence, inability or unwllllngness shall
    cease. ’
    ,t. . . .
    “We are of the opinion that the intention
    of this statute is, in the case of the absence
    of the justice of the peace, to authorize and
    confer jurisdiction upon the nearest justice of
    the peace in the county to perform,the duties
    of such absent justice. The statute does not,
    however, confer power upon such nearest justice
    to go outside of his precinct and to the office
    of such absent justice and there perform such
    duties, but contemplates that the duties shall
    be performed in the precinct of such nearest
    justice. Crawford v. Saunders & Brts., 
    9 Tex. Civ
    . App. 225, 
    29 S.W. 102
    . . . .
    It Is noted that the Court did not questlon the validity
    of the 1895 Act involved In that case.
    In Jones v. Alexander, 
    122 Tex. 328
    , 
    59 S.W.2d 1080
    (1933), the Court upheld the validity of an act of the Legislature
    providing for membership on juvenile boards by district judges.
    In that case the Court observed:
    .The Supreme Court of this state has
    repeatedly held that courts have no right to
    declare an act of the Legislature void, unless
    - 249 -
    Hon. Charles F. Herring, page 5 (M-54)
    able to point to some provision of the Consti-
    tution which prohibits the act or from which
    the prohibition necessarily arises. Lytle v.
    Halff, 
    75 Tex. 128
    , 
    12 S.W. 610
    ; Harris County
    v. Stewart, 
    91 Tex. 133
    , 
    41 S.W. 650
    ; Smiseion
    v. State, 
    71 Tex. 222
    , 233, 
    9 S.W. 112
    ' San
    Antonio, etc. v. State, 
    79 Tex. 264
    , 
    14 S.W. 1063
    ."
    Construing the provlalons of Senate Bill 317 of the 60th
    Legislature In light of the foregoing authorities, it Is noted
    that the bill merely provides for the performance of additional
    duties by a Justice of the Peace by authorizing a Justice of the
    Peace to hold Court for another Justice whose precinct is in the
    same county. We are unable 'to polnt to some provision of the
    Constitution which prohibits the Act." Therefore you are advised
    that Senate Bill 317 of the 60th Legislature authorizing exchange
    of benches by Justices of the Peace is constltutlonal,
    SUMMARY
    Senate Bill 317 of the 60th Legislature au-
    thorizing exchange of benches by Justices of the
    Peace is constitutional.
    truly yours,
    cc*
    D@z&R
    C,    TIN
    y General of Texas
    Prepared by John Reeves
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman
    W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman
    W. 0. Shultz
    Mark White
    Alan Minter
    James McCoy
    STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT
    A. J. Carubbl, Jr.
    - 250 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-54

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1967

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017