In spite 0r the express exemptions enurmrated in the above oonstitutional provision, the Courts of Texas have l.zc.poeed an additional requirement to pennit a person to hold two offfoee, i. e., that' the two offlaes be not laoozapatible. Biencourt v. Parker, !37 Tax. 558; State v. Brinkerhoif, 66 Tex. 45; Thomas Pi. klbarnathy County Line Independent School ~iatrfct, 290 S. '6. 182; State V. &,rtin, 51 S. W. (ad) 615. *2 Bonorsble W. J. Mullor, Pa@. e

Are the ofiicea of Juetia8 ot Pea08 and County Conmissioner incon@atibla? article 1058, Cod8 of Crininal Frooecurc, as asended, 19150, provides that the Co~esloner8~ Court shall approve the aooounts or Juetioer 0r Yeace r0r r8fts in crfnfnal actions. Should a Juetloe of the Peaor likewise be h County CoxniS6foner, he rould, In on8 oapaolty, be passing upon his own aocount fn another Office. Such a situation preoenta an ano~ly whloh clearly the two randerr OffiO8f3 ilNOLQpatibl8. There may be other tunotions ot th8 two offices which BM lfkewlae lnooiupatlbl8, but th8 on8 instance cited is euffioient to 00~3 within the rule laid down by the above 4888s.

You are th8r8fOr8 advised that the llame p8TWn*I

aaa8 may not appear OIA the OttiQial ballot at a $aaeral 8180- tion as a oandidate both for thr OfriO O? Juetioe ot Peaoa and County cOUURiS81On8r.

i%lt8X' R. Kooh arsietrnt