Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1945 )

t 405 OFFICE OF THE All-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN GROVERSELLERS ATTORNEY GENERAL Ronorablo I). S. Arnold Couaty Attornay Robrrtr tea, Toxrr D46r Yirr Iour recpusrt for ra the above qusetlon has beoa reaeived. 014U64 ~II the Ot 6a 4144tiOn 4lld Z-46Ult th4r4Of, Off8D6. 18 oolwited in 1 dry:c6rOr? roof be 166d6 sh6n the oiienae fr ohol-la betess@ In E dry 6re6? It i.6 vi6w of tb. above alsu68 in the 058 sad proor IS unneae668ry. however I would 15k6 $a h8ve lour opinion on tbs Iubjeot.* Ia B6ldrld@ ~6. 3tote, 108, 8. i'l. (&a), at ~6~0 700, Jade@ Morrow, prmrlding Jud&s of the Court of Urimkal Appsrlr or 9w68, aapr I 406 lioaorablo 0. 3. Arnold, pa@ P “bill of rxooptloa Ro. 1 ooxql8In8 ot the 80610~ ot the aotirt In everruling th4 rpp4l~aat~r netion for an in8trUOta vrrdlot of BOt @la11tt b484d ~poa 6h4 g?OUnd that th0 8t8tO fubd t0 ma b l U884 i8 oha?@ 01 36 8glIMt rp~llant br r4880B Of the fact tbt thOra I8 BO p?OOf 6hbt ‘RI60 OOUEt~ W48 8 'dr7 8r48"4t th4 tirr Of t& OOd68h St th0 Off41184. Oar 4umInatlon of th4 reaord f8il8 to rarer1 any lvId4844 to tha 4tt4at that 8 loas], option olaatioB wa8 over hold In ?fI64 County, or the r*6ult or 8uOh *leotIoa, or that ths re8ult ~8 doalared aad the dealaratlon pub- li6h4d. Thhr da4I8I468 0r thi6 oourt ar4 uaanIui4u8 to the atteot that In a oonviatlon for violrtIoa of the looal option law (Vm808'6 Ann. P. 0. art. 666-23) the proof met ahow that looal option 148 In form in the ooumty mmtion6d In the indletawnt. S44 Cunningham v. State (94x. Cr. App.) 108 9. *. 28 413; stwmrt v. Stat0 (T4x. Cr. App.) 108 3. ‘R. ld 418; H\ll6phr4J8V. St464 (Tea. al’. Ap .) 99 S.Y. 2d $00; Qnen v. Sbrte (Tox. Cr. App.) P01 S. 3. I ad I ea.* It la our opinion that in a oomplaint for violation of the TOXE8 LlquOr Control Aot in 8 dr;l area th4 9-h 8hOuld allege end proto thr holdin@ Of 8B 8hOtIOB 8nd r*8Ult thereor, that the hrult of 8uOh lleotion ~48 dmoland snd the deolaration publi8hed 88 provldad by law. Tow vary truly