in the petltion and defined by the Commiaaionera Court to detem?Ine whether homea, mules, jaaks, jentm%e, and cattle shall be permitted to run at large fn swh gounty or sqab suWtislon of 8 .aoutxty a8 asag W dewrl?md bx the petition and defined by the Capnnisaionera Court. . . ." Articrle 16, +wtian 23 of the Oanstitiution of t&cas #Povldee t

' %w &e@alatuzw mar pare lay8 for the tegttltW.on of live irtods t@ the pyataat;ion of #toolc rafsers:ln .the lrooak ralsfng portian of the StSte, and emupt Finn the operatian of rruoh laws other portlpn5, seetlons, or. aoyntlesl aad 8haY.l~ hwe pawer to pass gener5.l and mpe- aLal laws fix the inapeatian at a&t&6, stack8 aad ,Mdes emI for the regulation of brsnd8; pravlded that imy local lav thtia paaead i&l1 be r&ubed(ted to. th6 treehaidelr of the UeatLw *3 - .

Pxinrsble %.lter CRPBOIL, page j Other &es ‘ao&truf a similar lav (Artiolee 6930

end 6932, R.C.S. of Texas, 1925 do not seem to have limited 7 the rnes.nir#g@.~,~,~ ~:tqlsa~:~.eub@i+VialoRU ,to a~~knopp~p6~iti~ subdivision of ‘the aouatg.

In lnoe 8. Barber, (civ. App.)' 24i’i.W<“iii? the court h&d that under Art ioles 6950 :-aa&~2; .:+&C .8.3& 3Texas , 1925, a petition, deecrlbing the subdivlsion as, “All of,Liye o& Peninsula, berag all that portPan of said oounty bounded on. the east by Bt@ Fish and Araneas +ye,, TO?,,:t+a@$h by, I.

ArsIlctis ar+Copaxic BAya, on ths #c&h .by the northern’ %ie of San Pt3~3t34~0 County* va8 suf'fioignt. :.:. *:,,~l;:. '::::'::~.~.;::i::~

In the caee of Johnson w. State, (Orlm. App. 244 the court held that under Articles 6930 and S.W. 609, $32, above referred to, a description of E eubdlvleion of Aranrae County aa "Live Oak Peninsula, bounded on the east by Red Biah and Ammeas Bags; on the north by Aransae and Copano Bqe; on the vest by Copano and Puerto B~ye and on the south by the and Aransae” was auffl- line between the oouutles Sen Patrieio cient .

while the authorities, herelnebove resewed to, do

not oonstrue the provisions of Article aupra, ve think 6954, they me pertinent and a&mlioable to asoertaln the meatking of the term “subdlvi.slon as wed In aaid statute,

We believe the provleions of Artiole 6954, rtxpra, are susceptible of even a awe liberal interpretatlotl, in the reqtielte mxnbe2 of petl- ao far aa lta tema authorhe tloners to presorlbeb in their petition, the aree or tomi- tory or *subdivIsIon of the county In which en eleotlon 1s to be called and held,than the efPlilar aata oonetrued in the caeea cited.

You are, therefore, advleed that In our opl.nLou the

petitioners are authorised, by Artlole supra, to define 6954, the boundaries of the territory In vhleh it is derirsd to have a rtoek lau eleation eazled md held, whloh petition, lf signed by the reqtiaZte aua@e~ of freeholderr, and dercrlp- tlon vould proper1 be the basis of an order of the Connnls- sianera' Court ca 19 lug the eleotion, in the subdivision des- *4 iionorable Wplter Caraon , page 4 in the petition, and #at suoh erea may bo an unincor- cribed

porated town.

Yom brief in thler netter wae very helpful to us. Youru very truly 4. ,Q~~JIJED JUN I-=, 1941 ATTORNEY C4BW3FiAL OF TKXG3

HMrdb