Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

......
-. . . .
... .:.- ..
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Eonoreble Taylor Cariiale, Fege 3
where before his eleotloh, he had been empJ.oyedadversely.
HOUle7er,it iS 8R aholeht OaliOhOf leg81 qthiqa that no at-
torncig~sha&l rqma.qent adverasor oonilioting intqerseta.
It.16 8ga$nst ,pablle. poliop r0r a ooaaty attomey to prose-
oat@ in Q oaso.whan hq hadbmn qrnployqd~aUvereqly.prlor
to hie .q~eo@.on,~$rreepeotlvqoi the abasnqq of a prohltd-
tory statate;erd we think the~ootmts would 80 hold.
Bpe therefore think that you have very properly
&$eid, ~yourself iir,paahoases.
An assistant - oount y attqrney hae authorltp. bog&k
atiidavits in hie ~name as ahsiatant Oo+ty sttqney.
Dlux~V.’ State‘;.35 2. W. 661, Kqllqy v. statq, 38 8, pr.391
Noore ‘v..%fetq, 3G S. F..209; Copeland v. State, 38 S. F.
210, and .kaley v. .&ate, ,224 5.. W. .'771.
,
I The aae,edf Pvivisv. State,'58 3. W.. (2) 89, holds
that an stiaiatantoo&ty attorney ia mug auttrolizs~ ta 00n-
daot a oriminel proaeautlon in the name of the State of Texas.
Artfclq 31, vernoh'e Annotated Texas Code of Crfm-'
reads & r0iith:
inal Proeqdtixe,‘
-Art. 31. (38) 139) Attorney pr6 tern
Vhaaqvar .a~ngditx&ct.or dounty attorney falls
to ettdnd,a,nftqnn of t&e districti, Oounty aZ ja&t-
ioe*d mart, the judge of eaid oourt or auoh jaatles
nap appoint some ocm tent attorney to pqrfonn tlm
duties of auoh dlatrr ot qc aounty ettqrn6y,'*troshall
bo allowed the aam3 oaPpenratloa.for hls.aarviocreaa
la allowed the district attorney 01:’oonnbJ attornay.
Said appolhtmqnt ohall not extend beyond the te$m OS
the aourt et whioh it ie made, and @alI be vaekted
upon the appearease of the diertriotor oounty attor-
neg."
The citmeof %ete,v. Laokey, 35 T. 357, hold6 Oha*
an ettorney pro tern.appolnted~by the oourt hea all the powers
and.dutles of the reguler proseauting EttOrnsY.
The above quota& provlsione of Artiale 25. V. 3. C.
C. TJ.,were undoubtedly enacted for the puPpos% of keeping