Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1966 )


Menu:
  •    .        r
    THE   ktTl.ORNEY                  GENERAL
    OF    TEXAS
    AUSTIN.   TEXAS            78711
    WAGGONER           CARTR
    .4Tr”YXEx       (IBSERAL
    April 12, 1966
    Honorable John Lawhon                                 Opinion NO. c-658
    County and District Attorney
    Denton County                                         Re:     When the commissioners
    Denton, Texas                                                 court has enlarged a wet
    justice precinct by add-
    ing additional territory
    to same which was in a
    dry precinct, whether the
    territory within the
    original wet precinct
    remains wet, and related
    Dear Mr. Lawhon:                                              questions.
    Your letter requesting 8.nopinion of this office reads
    as follows:
    "Prior to 1935 all Denton County was
    dry. In September of 1935, Justice Pre-
    cinct Two 1n Denton County held a local
    option electlon. The area voted to allow
    the sale of beer. . . . Since the Justice
    Precinct election of September, 1935,
    there have been no other elections held
    concerning local option for liquor In the
    area In question. In 1948, the Commla-
    sloners Court of Denton County, reduced
    the number of Justice precincts from 8
    to 5. As a result the territorial bound-
    aries of old Justice Precinct Two were
    enlarged in lg@ to Include old Justice
    Precinct Two plus additional territory.
    Recently, a Denton County citizen living
    wlthln the boundaries of old Justice Pre-
    cinct Two applied for an application to
    obtain a beer license. Questions:
    "1. Is the territory within old
    Justice Precinct Two now a wet area?
    "2. If yes, does the wet area ln-
    elude only the territory boundaries of
    old Justice Precinct Two?"
    -3179-
    ”    .
    Honorable John Lawhon, Page 2 (C-658)
    The Court in Bullington v. Lear, 
    230 S.W.2d 290
    , 292
    (Tex.Clv.App. 1950, no history), announced the followlng rule:
    It has been held that It Is beyond
    the power of the commissioners court to so
    change the boundary of a justice precinct as
    to repeal a law passed by a local option elec-
    tion In favor of or against prohibition.
    Houchlns v. Plalnos, 
    130 Tex. 413
    , 
    110 S.W.2d 549
    ; Jackson v. State, 
    135 Tex. Crim. 140
    , 
    118 S.W.2d 313
    .
    "This election was a clear, valid declara-
    tion of the will of the voters as to which under
    the Constitution and statutes they had a right
    to authorltlvely express their will. Ry virtue
    of this election, Justice Precinct No. 2 of
    Crane County as it existed on August 3, 1949,
    the date the petition was filed with the County
    Clerk and on August 8, 1949, the date the Com-
    missioners Court ordered the election, became
    dry."
    The Court In the case of Powell v. Smith, 
    90 S.W.2d 942
    , 944 (Tex.Clv.App. 1936, no history), announced the fol-
    lowing rule:
    1,
    'Where local option was adopted In
    any glcen locality, by the majority of the
    voters therein, It will remain In force un-
    til the qualified voters of such particular
    subdivision decide otherwise In an election
    held for that purpose. . . .I'
    The Texas Supreme Court in Houchlns v. Plalnos, 
    130 Tex. 413
    , 
    110 S.W.2d 549
    (1937), announced the rule that an orlgl-
    nal territory  that was dry remained dry until there was an
    election In the same territory to vote on the same question.
    The Court stated at page 555:
    I,    As to the case at bar, we hold
    that'whlie It Is true that the City of Hous-
    ton Heights has long since ceased to exist
    a8 a municipal corporation, still It yet
    exists for the purpose of holding a local
    option election to vote on the question of
    making It lawful to sell Intoxicating liquors
    within the area originally voted dry,"
    -3180-
    .       .
    Honorable John Lawhon, Page 3 (C-658)
    Based upon the above authorities, It la the opinion of
    this office that the answer to the two questions should be as
    follows:
    1.   The original territory within the old
    Justice Precinct Two 1s still wet for
    the limited purpose of the sale of beer
    for on-premises consumption.
    2.   The wet area Includes only the terrl-
    torlal boundaries of old Justice Pre-
    cinct Two.
    Consistent with this are Attorney General's Oplnlons Nos. O-297,
    O-6880 and WW-1149.
    Since this office received the above opinion request,
    we received a telephone call from your office in which you ad-
    vised us that the following additional facts would be relative
    In answering the opinion request:
    "On August 24, 1935, the State Constl-
    tutlon legalized the sale of beer. , . .
    "On September 21, 1935, the electors In
    Justice Precinct No. 2 In a local option
    election had before them the following two
    proposltlons:
    1111 . For the sale of beer
    containing not more
    than 3.2 percent (3.2%)
    of alcohol by weight.
    n'2. Against the sale of
    beer containing not
    more than 3.2 percent
    b;ZLt.~f alcohol by
    "The people voted for the sale of 3.2
    percent beer. It was passed by the people
    on September 21, 1935.
    "Question: If the area Is wet, what
    percentage of alcohol may the beer con-
    tain by weight, 3.2 percent or 4 percent?"
    -3181-
    Honorable John Lawhon, Page 4 (c-658)
    In 1933, Congress modified the Volstead Act to permit the
    sale of beer.
    On August 26, 1933, the voters of Texas adopted an amend-
    ment to the State Constitution legalizing the sale of beer con-
    taining not more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight In cities,
    counties or political subdivisions thereof In which the qualified
    voters voted to legalize the sale of beer.
    In 1933, the Regular Session of the Forty-Third Le lsla-
    ture enacted House Bill No. 122, Chapter 116, Secti.onl(b7 ,
    which provides:
    "(b). Upon and after the effective date
    of this Act (as provided In subsections (c)
    and (d) of Section 28 of this Act) In all
    counties In the State of Texas and In all
    political subdivisions thereof wherein the
    sale of Intoxicating liquors had been pro-
    hibited by local option election held under
    the laws of the State of Texas and In force
    at the time of taking effect of Section 20,
    Article 16 of the Constitution of Texas, it
    shall continue to be unlawful to manufacture,
    sell, barter or exchange In any such county
    or any such political subdlvlslon of said
    county any vlnous or malt liquors containing
    In excess of one per cent (1s) alcoholic con-
    tent by volume, unless and until a majority
    of the qualified voters in said county or
    political subdivision thereof voting at an
    election held for such purpose shall deter-
    mine It to be lawful to manufacture, sell,
    barter or exchange In such county or In such
    political subdivision of said county any
    vlnous and malt liquors containing not more
    than three and two-tenths per centum (3.2s)
    alcoholic content by weight;"
    The election held on September 21, 1935, In Justice Pre-
    cinct Two of Denton County, as described previously, was ap-
    parently in accordance with House Bill No. 122, Acts of the
    Forty-Third Legislature, 1933, and would legalize the sale of
    beer containing not more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight in
    Justice Precinct Two.
    On December 5, 1933, the Twenty-First Amendment to the
    Federal Constitution, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment,
    became effective.
    -3182-
    Honorable John Lawhon, Page 5 (c-658)
    On August 24, 1935, the voters of Texas adopted an amend-
    ment of Article 16, Section 20 of the State Constitution re-
    pealing State prohibition.
    House Bill No. 122, ,Acts of the Forty-Third Legislature,
    1933, was repealed by House Bill No. 77, Acts of the Forty-
    Fourth Legislature, 1935, Second Called Session, and the rela-
    tive portions of such Act reads as follows:
    "Article II, Section 1.
    "Manufacture, sale and distribution of
    beer authorized; local option; 'beer' de-
    fined. (a) The manufacture, sale and dls-
    trlbution of beer containing one-half (l/2)
    of one per cent (1%) or more of alcohol b
    volume and no more than four per centum (J $)
    of alcohol by weight is hereby authorized
    wlthln the State of Texas.
    "Unless otherwise herein specifically
    provided by the terms of this Act, the
    manufacture, sale and distribution of beer,
    as hereinafter defined, shall be governed
    exclusively by the provisions of Article
    II of this Act, Chapter 116, Acts of the
    Regular Session, Forty-Third Legislature,
    and all amendments thereto, are hereby
    repealed.
    "(b) It shall continue to be unlawful
    to manufacture, sell, barter or exchange In
    any county, Justice's Precinct or lncor-
    porated city or town any malt liquor con-
    taining In excess of one-half (l/2) of one
    per cent (1%) alcohol by volume except In
    counties, Justice's Precincts or incorpora-
    ted cities or towns wherein the voters
    thereof had not adopted prohibition by local
    option elections held under the laws of the
    State of Texas and In force at the time of
    taking effect of Section 20, Article 16 of
    the Constitution of Texas In 1919; except
    that In counties, Justice's Precincts or
    Incorporated cities or towns wherein a
    figal-
    ma or
    lze the sale of beer In accordance with the
    local option provisions of Chapter lib,
    Acts of the Regular Session of the Forty-
    -31   83-
    Honorable John Lawhon, Page 6 (c-658)
    held in-any county, Jkticefs Precinct or
    incorporated city or town within this State
    In accordance with the provisions of Sec-
    tion 32 to 40 Inclusive of Article I of
    this Act, for the purpose of determining
    from time to time whether the sale of beer
    shall be prohibited or legalized within
    the prescribed limits; and it shall be un-
    lawful to sell beer in any county, Justice's
    Precinct or Incorporated city or town where-
    in the same shall be prohibited by local
    option election, and lawful to sell beer
    under the provisions hereof In any county,
    Justice's Precinct, or Incorporated city
    or town wherein the sale of beer shall be
    legalized by local option election.
    "(c) The word 'beer' as hereinafter
    used in this Act and for the purpose of
    this Article, shall mean any malt beverage
    containing one-half (l/2) of one per cent
    (1%) or more of alcohol by volume and not
    more than four per centum (4%) of alcohol
    by weight." (Emphasis added)
    House Bill No. 77 was approved by the Governor on
    November 15, 1935, and became effective upon the same date.
    Therefore, It Is the opinion of this office that the
    above quoted language from House Bill No. 77, Acts of the
    Forty-Fourth Legislature, 1935, Second Called Session, auth-
    orized the sale of any malt beverage containing one-half (l/2)
    of one per cent (1%) or more of alcohol by volume and not more
    than four per centum (4%) of alcohol by weight In any area in
    which the sale of any malt beverage containing not more than
    3.2 per cent (3.2%) of alcohol by weight was then authorized.
    Assuming the validity of the election held In Justice Precinct
    2 in Denton County on September 21, 1935, beer contalnlng not
    more than four per cent (4s) of alcohol by weight may now be
    sold in such precinct.
    SUMMARY
    When the Commissioners Court enlarged
    Justice Precinct Two In 1948, the same
    having in 1935 voted to legalize the sale
    -3184-
    .     ‘
    Honorable John Lawhon, Page 7 (c-658)
    of beer, by adding additional territory
    which was previously In a dry Justice
    Precinct, only the orlglnal territorial
    boundaries of Justice Precinct Two re-
    mained wet for the limited purpose of
    the sale of beer not in excess of 4.0
    per cent by weight of alcohol by virtue
    of the provisions of House Bill No. 77,
    Forty-Fourth Legislature, Second Called
    Session (1935).
    Very truly yours,
    WAGGONER CARR
    Attorney General of Texas
    Assistant Attorney General
    DHC/dt
    APPROVED
    OPINION COMMITTEE:
    W. V. Geppert, Chairman
    Gilbert J. Pena
    Mary K. Wall
    Philllp Crawford
    W. 0. Shultz
    APPROVED FOR THE,,ATTORNEYGENERAL
    By T. B. Wright
    -3185-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C-658

Judges: Waggoner Carr

Filed Date: 7/2/1966

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017