*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS ,

AUSTIN

Ronorablo W. A. Morrison

Criminal District Attorney

Milam County

Cameron, Texas

Dear Slrl

ill Fn the oheok and this ia done, 0 to personal prop- vs. the State, 57 S.W. noxwd, vhers does 9. W. 26 276; and from a saarch of the author- Sims vs,,tho State, 13 S.W. 11 S. W. 2d 254; and . brings m to (I.

of Saiindlins in th& county where the choc‘x 1.0 actually lies dollvorod to the ecll.or and title to the Prop- erty passes, and not Xn the oounty in vhioh the check uas written. "

lrfc havo further lnforzzt$on from you to ,tho off%ct that the pey,-son y30 gave the chock was D filling ,stntion oporntor in

“0 ~~yy”y,c.l,..* . . -.. a- --..--.-.

.a-. - .-. .,

ilonorable W. A. Morrison, Page 2

A county vho had authorized hfs employee and agent to purchase

gasoline for him from the complaining witness, a refinery owner

of B county, and authorized his employee to fill in the amount

of the check. The check was givon for the gasoline in B coun-

ty and the gasoline was delivered in B county.

We quote from 12 Texas Jurisprudence, pego 444, as follotrs:

‘The place where a crime is consummated is often, in contemplation of lav, the place

whore %t, Is committed. For example, vhere

the offense consists In soiling an article

or commodity, the venue is ordinarily in the

oounty uhore delivery vas made, although pay-

ment therofor had previously been mede In

another county, or the terms of the sale And where the offense

agreed upon plsevhere.

ie consummated by purchasing and receiving

an article, the venue in ordinarily in the

county ln which the artlole was purchased 0 * *,‘I and dcllvered.

In the cese of Sims VS. State, I.3 S. W. 653, cited by‘you, appellant Sims was charged with sirlndllng; the false

representations trere made ln Gastland County but the property

orse) we.9 delivered to and was acquired by tho appellant

I:: iLovn county . We quota from the court’s opinion ns follovsl

“It is tho acquisition of tho property that completes the offense. In this case,

no offense vas oommitted in Zastland County,

becnum the horse was not there acquired by

tho dcf enfdant. ”

The same principle of law is announced in tho case of becbmd v. ‘Stato, 57 5. W, 813, cited by you. The case of Robertson v. State, 132 5. II. (2d) 276, the Sims and Dochard cases.

cited by you, follows and cites In

the Robertson case the appellant Robertson in Tarrant County,

Texas telephoned fraudulent reprosontations to the prosecuting In Harris County, Toxas, Mere the prosecuting vitnoss.

vitncss

in rollance on the fraudulent reprosentatlono delivered some

rubber floor matting to a common carrier bus line for delivery

to Robertson. Robertson trao tried and convicted in Tarrant

I“ ‘-

Honorable V. A. EI3rrison, Pago 3

county. The Texas Court of Crininal. Appoala rcvcrsed the con-

viction and held that venue Vas in Harris County vhare the de-

livery of the floor mhi;tIng VV&S made since ths proparty vas

transforrod to Robertson by delivery into the poss3soion of

ths carrier.