Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-5336 Page: 2 of 4
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
687
honorable R V. Pitaan, page 2
S. F. Precinots in the county? If so, can it be
taed as costs against the defendant when convlo*
tion is had or from vhat fund should it be paidt"
Section 40, Article XIVI of the State Constitution,
provides in parts
'lNo person shall hold or exercise, at the
same time, more than one oivil office of emolu-
sent, except that of justice of the peace, county
commissioner, notary putlie aod postmaster, . . .
unless otherwise spoloically provided herein.
With reference to the foregoing constitutional po-
vision the Supree Court of XIas in the case of Geal v. Thoq-
son, et I., I 8. V. 365,s said
. . Does this mean that an incumbent oan
hold either of the offices named, and at the same
any other office, or that he oa on ly hold tvo
offices when both are among those speoitically
designated We think the former is the proper
construction. The lanuag is copied ainaly from
section 26 of Artiols the Constitutionof
185, of 1861, and of 1866, which is the same in
each of those instruments, and reads 8as foloes
. . It is alear that under this section any
justice of the peae right hold another office.
ovoll v. Wilson, 16 fez. 59. The office of jusa
tioe of the peaoe was made an exception to the
general rule, and the inference from the use of
the sane 1tanga in the Present Constitution
wat the ere Adton of other offices, is strong
that It iwas not ueant in any manner to change the
gneral role, but maerely to make additional ex-
caeptions. The other construction would atrially
modify the general effeoot of the provision. It
would prevent even a justice ofthe peace from
holding any other office except one of those Spe-
oially named, and would be a radical departure
from the provisions of all rprbvlous oonstitutions
on the same subject. Constitution, 1869, Artiole3, eoton 30. It t he m e of the provision
in question been oexept those of justice of
t.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-5336, text, 1943; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth262607/m1/2/: accessed March 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.