Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

186 OFFICE OF THE A7TORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN &noraUe J. N. fiauldwia @unty Attorney, Johnson County cleburne, Texas Dousir: Yiohave rscslvsd your rs and quot. from ssas as follows: "OILS Of the iasmbsrsOf th lonars~ Court or thls oounty ha holssale lum- bar business ior ; hs oprates a truok and goes east Taxas and buys lumber e buys various kinds of lumbar 8 buys Umber suitable ror br ous lumber yuds in ld bridge lumbar to ias In this *lolnlty. Hs iereot lumberyards in ke whatover kind of lum- me of the lumber mld to on ha sold to one of the Jurls re load of bridge lumber. "The other three nrembars of ths Comaisslomrs~ Court halveheretoforebought from these local yards some of the indention1bridge lunaer that this Comls- sloner sold to the yards, and ueed it in repairing and buildingbridges in their resgaotlve preolmts. I tiso understandthat this partloular Comalssl~na~has pur- ohased rrom sane at the looal yards suas of the idsatl- oal bridge lumber that he had previouslysold ths ya#&s, and used it in re;?alrlngand building brld@es in hls preolJlot.Ths smterial in eaoh of suoh lnstanosswas paid Soorby the County, and the price paid ror the material was ths sake prioe that any individualwou3.d have had to pay Sor this kind of material. *I do not hiue any InformatIonthat tbsre existed any-ape-at or understendlngbetween the loss1 lumber yards and the Commlsalonor,thtithe, or any other Cm- mlssIoners or the oounty ~uld purohase at retafl any wers buying from him. part of the lumber the ~yirrd WKould the purebasingof this ldentleal bride lua- ber the boa1 yerds by the other three from nonbore of the Commissloaers~ Court,to be assd In bridge repairing and bulldlq In their respeotlve prsolnots,be a viola- tion of either art. 571 or Art. 373 of our Penal cads? Vjould the purshaslnaof this ldentlosl bridge 1-0 bar rroathe looal yards by this partloular Comlssloner, to be used in &id(s repalrln(land buIldisg Is his prs- olnot,bs a tlolatisa of elther Art. 1191or Art. 37S, OS our Psnal Oods?* Artlole 571, Psnal Cods OS Texas, reads as followsr *Any ofiloer or any sounty or OS asy olty or town who shall oootraot dlreotly or indlreotly, or beoome La any way latrsted is say oontraotror the purohsss oi any drait or order on the troasurcor suoh sosatyr alty or town, or ror asy jsry oertltlsatoer any other debt, olaia or dsmand for whloh said seunty, elty or town uy or oan in any event be made llabl?, shall be lined not lass thur ten nor more than twenty tlass the amount of the order, draft, jsry osrtiiloate,debt, olals or llabllltyBs purohasedor oontraotedior. Within the term 'oifloer,' 18 lnoludsd sr-offloer8ontll they have made a ilnai settlement of their oS?IoIal ao- OOunts.” Artiole 373, Penal Code of Texas, reads as follows: *IS any officer of may oounty, or of any crltyor town shall beooiw in any manner peeuniarlly lnterestsd in any eontraots made by suoh sounty, olty or tom, through Its a&ents, or otherulse, Sor ths eonstruotion or repairof any brldse, road, street, allay or house, or any other.work undertakenby suoh oousty, city or town, or shall be&we tnterested in any bld or propt~al for suoh work or In the purohase or sale of anything t -de for or on ecoount oi aloh oounty, city or town, or who shall oontruot for orenoelve any mney or property, or the iepreseatatlvsof either, or any emolkaent or advantage whatsoever la oonelderotlon of such bid, proposal,oontraot, purchase or sale, he shall be flned not less than fifty nor more tkaa rive hundred do11ars." Under the above faote subaitted by you, it seems olear that the bridge lumber purobased by ths ~mmls~loners for the use sad benefit or the oounty was purohased IFofii your looal lumber yard and not~fron your soarmiseloner~.Under well dsttled prlaol- plea of law we must prssums, la the abssnee of facts to the oon- ,trary.that your oommlsslonerowned so interest in such brldEe lumbar at the tlms s&me was purohasedfor the oouaty. Yea also state in your lstter that you know of no sgrwment or udlerstandlnt, between the lumber yard and the eommlrslonormeking the sale of such lumber to the luaiberyard, that would lndleste same was other than a Eons fide sale.. We do not believe that the aots-desorlbedin either of Jour questions oonstituts par se violationsof the hereinabove set out penal statutes. Trust&a6 we have answeredyour iaWry satlsfaotorlly, we are Yours very truly