Case Information

*1 OFFlCEOFTHEATT'ORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS AUSTIN

Eonorablo John 8. Baker

munty Auditor

Lamar county

Parir, Texta

Dear Sir:

T hir ia to l dv gltra eereful eon- ra ara tion t.o your o pinl

Quota the f0110ulD.g rrom y

bound to pay thfm ho OoaPiaaioaar'r t fund shall it be CoPPlllsaionarst Court aatlr without authority in meking e oontraot, the county 18 not bound by it8 EOtioli, and aannot be hold liable to pay e oonaideratlon net authorfted by law. See 11 Tex. Jur. 6323, 1 98; Tarrant 0ouat.j V. Re8aZ., (Tex. Baker, Page e I?. S92; Baldwin me Travl8 County, 40 Tex. Cir. App.) 9. Clr. 149, St3 8. W. 880.

Yie'have been unable to find Were question ha8 been tested in a Texar court aotion. Prom Tom8 Jurie- prudenoa we take the followingr

TTo d@atit a private mey offer 8uch rewards as~,he.pleaselr If publlo policy is not violatsb. mrut a public orficar cannot bind tha State or any or its 8ubaivialonr by 8uoh an orrer ia oonferred by leglelatloa. unlese authorltj Various rtatuteo authorize the @vine and’ofrer- in8 or reward8, the ~moet tiportant being those rhioh (1) authorize the Governor to offer re- ward8 the epprehheluion of persona aoourred or rd0ay who are evading arrclrtl (8) wathorlze the manager of the Texa8 Prirroa Syeteiu to offer remrde for the apprehension ot croaped pri- 8onere; and ‘(3) authorize 0o~mi~ic~or8* oourta to provide rewarda, not ezoeeding,ten dollar8 eeoh, Sor the reoepture of euoa l d oounty oon- riota. * (36 Tex. Jur. i 3 s

The pertinan~ etatutes alluded to 5s the test quot- ed aroz (1) Artfole lOO7, Code o? CrlmlAal Frooedure, 1925$ (8) Ar$lcle 6166z3, Vernon*8 Annotated Civil Statutart and (3) Article 6764, Revleed Civil stetutes), 1025. The rirot of theoe authorizes the Govarnor to offer reward8; the sooond, the Texas Pri8on System and the la8t i8 the authority for payment r0r recapture 0r county convlota.

In the aaee of Hagan V. Blaak, 159 Term. 290 17 S, W. (Ed) 908, the Supreme Court Of %hll~888. in hold& that e oounty oaurt had no power authority to pay a ra- ward to offlaere ror oonvlotioa 0r 1lQuor law violators, u8sd the rouarrlng laxwager

*The weight or authority gmsral.ly ia that a oounty may not orrsr a bounty or reward ior the detection 0f 0rreA8e8 a&net tha law8 0r the etate, nor for the conviotion oi crWal8, un~.eee sxprasely authorized by statutei the oounty gwernmsnt being oherge4 by statuta nith A0 duty or obligation to suppre88 crime rrom which the power to orrer suah reward or bounty

I ‘i. 4 BoA0rable John 8. Baker, Page 3

oould be lmplled. Am. & EA& Ency. Law (Ed Ed.) vol. 24, p. 945, Mte 2; Ruling Case Law, vol. iiS, p. lU.4 ( Rewards', I, 15 1; Board 0r c0m*r8 0r Grant County v. Bntdtord, 72. Ind. 453, 37 Am.

Rep. 174; Falker v. Board of Colll*rs of Elk County, 70 KaA. 96, 78 P. 167, 3 AM. Gee. 156 and note."

The rOuOtiAg exearptm are quoted iron the opinion Or the Supreme Court 0r Appsals or VlrgiA5.a iA the ease or City Of WiNtheater v. RedmoAd, 98 Va. 711, 25 9. E. 1001:

Wrlme Is an orranss agaiA8t the state, and not agalnet the city, town or county in which it may be oonmltted, a8 distinguished from the rest 0r the state. The 0rreAtie Is a@.nst tha sovereign authority, and not against the indivlpual par- tioular ookimwity. All the people of the state are oohoerned in th8 pU5iShslsnt and 8Up9lW88iOA And tha state, whose prerogative it at orbe.

18 to punish oriw, ha8 made adequate provision the vindicatloA of the publlo JWtiOe. When a crime has been omniittad, it 18 her law, and not that of the 6orporatlon, that is broken.

. . .

When a orb,ba8 been aolaeittad and thare is reason to fear that the ahargad there- with oanaot be arrested in the 0ommOn Oour88 Or prooseding, or Wh8A an often88 bar been UCmait- ted, but the person guilty there@ is unkA0wa, the legislature ha8 conferred upon the exeoutive or the 8)tata the authority* orrer a reward for apprehending and scouring, Or ror the deteotioa and oonviotlon of, euoh perEOn, a8 the oaae may be. Code Va. 1 4197. This is as rar as the legislature has deemed it wise or expedient to coder suoh authority. It might stxnetlmes be convenient and expedient ior mualOipalitia8 sob the authorities of a county to pOe8ens ruoh power, but it is a poorer that would be liable to great abus@. However, with ite oonvenlenoe' or expedienoy we have nothing to 40. Thzt Is a matter 8018ly for the consideration Of the legis- Ii the pOwer ha8 Mt been 8X- lature. preasly &aiiti;d, or is not neee88arilY Implied, Ii it be even doubtful, the it does not 8XiEt.

doubt must be reeolved against the exi8teAoo 0f the parror. . . ." Baker,;-~ ae

%4

MoCrary 1.52~ Hawk Y. Marion County, 43 Iowa 4731 Stamp v. Sae also Huthsing V. BOUSqU8t, Ped. ^[7] Z? Caes County, 47 Hich. 930, 11 N, W. 183; People v. Brewer, 111 Div. 916, 87 10. Y. 3. 349; Soheiber v. VonIArx, S7 ainn. 298, 92 N. W. 3; 64 C. J. 780, 1 ll.

IA view oi the aboV8 and other eutborit~es w8 are l%pelled to advise you that county is not legally au- thorized to pay the rermrd in question.

Yours V8l7 truly