Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1961 )

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL‘
OFTEXAS
AUSTEN aa. ‘LCXAS
FVILL WILSON
ATTORNEYGENERAL
September 25, 1961
Hon. Fred P. Holub Opinion No. WW-1149
County Attorney
Matagorda County Re: If one justice precinct is wet !~
Bay City, Texas and a portion of a dry precinct
Is merged with said wet precinct,
and that part of the dry precinct
merged with the wet precinct has
no residents, does that portion
of the dry precinct merged with
Dear Mr. Holub: the wet precinct become wet?
Your request for an opinion on the following question:
“If one justice precinct Is wet and a portion of a~
dry precinct la merged with said wet precinct, and
that part of the dry precinct merged with the wet
precinct has no residents, does that portion of the
dry precinct merged with the wet precinct become
wet?”
has been received by this office.
The provisions covering local option elections are set
out in Article 666-32 et seq. V.P.C. These statutes were,enT
acted by the Legislature under the authority of Article 16;,'.:,
Section 20 of the Texas Constitution, paragraphs (b) and (c).
In Goodie Goodle Sandwich, Inc. v. State, 138 S.W. 2d
App.,error
906,(civ. dlsm., judgm. car. 1940) Chief Justice
Bond, speaking for the court, held, at page 909:
“It cannot be~.gainsald that the Commissioners!
Court had the power and authority to define, re-
,bofJlcr,m> or alter the boundaries of pre-
?3ncts wf%hin the county, and tv ascertain the
facts necessary to the exercise of such;powers;
but it does not lie within the power of” the
Court to detach ‘dry’ territory from a ‘dry~l
precinct and attach It to a *wet’ precinct,
thereby making the detached territory ‘wet’,
and allowing the sale, barter and exchange of
prohibited liquors within the detached terrl-
tory, perforce of the change.”
Honorable Fred P. Holub, page 2 (WW-1149)
Consistent with this are Attorney General's Opinions Nos.
O-297 and 0-6600.
We do not believe that the absence of resfdents in the
merged portion?makes any difference as the cases uniformly
hold,that the status of the area at the time of the merger
must remain the same until a local option election has been
held as provided for in the statutes. Houchlns v. Plalnos;xl30
Tex. 413, 110 S.W.2d 549, (1937). Griffin v. State, 131
Crlm. 231, 128 S.W.2d 1197 1939j; Griffin v. !rucker, 102 *
Tex. 420, 118 S.W. 635 (1909';f Goodie Goodle Sandwich, Inc. v.
State, supra. See also 25 A.L.R. 2d 8b3.
SUMMARY
When one justice precinct is wet and a portion of,a
dry precinct is merged with said wet precinct and
even though that part of the dry precinct merged
with the wet precinct has no residents, the said
portion of the dry precinct merged with the wet
precinct remains dry.
Yours very truly,
TJtkf&
ws: sh Norman V. Suare
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
..:;
Pat Ebiky
Tom Burrus
Gordon Cass \ ,.
REVIEWEDFOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Houghton Brownlee, Jr.