Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

&=IcE OFTHE A~ORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN
GROVERSELLERS
ATTORN.? GENERAL
iionorablei% J.
Lustin, Texas
Lmar Sir:
XQ have your let
department (YLthe above-as Of the
58
Pemal Code sbove~r to take, sell,
offqr for sale or aertaln SpeO108
of fish, greater t
8whcthar,or not Artl-
ply,to~~q&lwMvl and ~0x0 i
seasion 801aly for the
o purchaser tub whether
the railroad or axpre88
oluslvO, v. A. c. f.'
1 oonatrainodto dlreot your at-
pang oould ba held orlmintillyresponsible for havtri in his poa-
8686fon, ffah ot an illegal sias, where suah agent or employse
aooaFted the fish 80161y for the purpo8e,of ahlpmelltrrom seller
to ;urchaseY.
There bcslngno reported casea .ln point, resort muat
be had to analogous asses under faote not in legal efieot dif-
fersnt from these here obtainLug. ,I
The Suprane Court of Vermont ifiState v. Goss, 59 Vt.
266, 9 xl. 829, said:
&xmrable Wi. J. l’uoker, pi& 2’
*IS, then ln the abs6noa of su8y;loioua ap-
- geazancaa or 0 i roumstaaws, an expraas 08rri:lr $8
n6Ithsr bound to know nor euthorlzadto find out,
as a oonditlon of reoalvlng It, what 8 paokage
oontains that is offered to him for oarriage, it
would bs strange to hold 'hira guilty of a orImlna1
OfiWlS@ boasuse Of the Oh6reOtOr Of the OoXIt6sta;
ror in mob oa8a he is bound to oarry, and liable
if he do68 not, and t&a law will not 0ompe1 a man
ta a&, and than ?xnlsh him for sating. Hanoe the
t’ux’ntn~ point in this aasa 18 whether the raepond-
ht had reason to bellate or suspaot--forit ap-
p-Z8 timt he aid not knowthat these pad%gsS
oontainadwhat they did. Ii he did. ha Is ohargu?
with hotSo or their.ooateatm, ana
he afa not he 18 not charged with
18 abt @fit&?
upca the Hltro4ljroarlh
c0t3m6rthe tmit6d
In answer to the first part of quaStiOli,th0
08rritwtssgeats ana employecrs would not F” e llable~In the ab-
8QIIOB Of nOtI Or kaowlrd (IOf tht4I116& siZS Of tha t18,h.
ft 18 a reU-aettled prim fpla 0f law that Igmmmee of the law
is nevux a defense against 8 trMxm1 8ot, bitt%$noranO6 of cay
faot that is an sssenttal part of the ‘Qrbtfa61 aat I8 dreyS Sri
exou8e.
7
%norabla pireJ. Tuaker, page 3
It t&e olrouamtmou are euoh IISare r6aeonabl.y oal-
aulated to arouse auaplclon or Inquiry with rsmpect to the con-
tents of any package o?fersd for shiparsnt, the oarrier may rely
upon the repreesntntlonaof ths.ahipperaa to the nature or Its
oontente. 8 Tax. Jur., Sootlon 30, p. 57. Should the shipper
lnforrathe aarrler of the illegal alze of the fish or if irom
attendant airowmtxmoaa ths agent knew or cauld have reasonably
aaosrtalnedthe iLIegRlnature of the itah, then he would be
1Labls for hari~ In his poraesslou fish of an llla~a~lsize.
But thle, only where the aurplclow appearanassor olrauzmtancee
of the nhlpmnt muld meats a duty to irqulrp cr inraatigata.
It has bsw held, and -rre think properly, that a sarrler in tie
absanoe or auspIeloucl appseranoesor ?ArawIIptLuLoefs,
is neither
grssuattd to know nor authorizedto SInd oat, as h ~cmdltlon of
receiving it, whether the package cffered aontalns artlolea it
sti&rbreg to oarrg. Elll~tt on Railroads,second Edi, See.
** l
In the raooad part of your uuwtlon ycu arrkwhether
or not theme fish iaplbs.8old by the aarrlor wlm unel+ke6 at
their destination. m thinknot. vfahats here held that the
oarrla is arwpt from crl&lnal llabillt~ wham he has a0 notleo
OP knwlodg~ of the l.Ll@gal~tur8 OS tha goti aoaapted far
IlhlplUlt.Hwarar, ln @am at ti#ale by the aarrZer, ho wmild
have l,tlt&rit~to opan Thorpiwkagu and~exnaalne th6lr UoZMatS
mad ucmld be ohugsd with lcawled~e of thalr Ulsgal nature.
iipprwea Sat. 2,
Carloa C. Ashley
First ~slstant
Attorney Oeneral
%D/JCP/ddt