Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Xonorable Charl& A. Toeoh
Dotmy Auditor
Hall ot Rsoords
Dallas, Texas
D. Anderson, or ths Veterans' Roapl- n Waoo, Taxas, the mm of $36.00.
for
murder. The fnots arc) eubstantlolly RQ followar Edward 9. P&m was lndloted the murder of one
Bllllan Lloyd Presley, rMoh'orime wan olle~ed
have oaourrod on Koverr.ber 19. 1937. Tn the first
Aononble ChRTlsS A. '10ROh, Page 2
trial, the aoouscU was ulven the death penalty. (see 126 3. X. (28)~ ,431). The reason set forth
by the court of Crlmlncl Appeals for the reversal
of said ceac was thnt oertaln lay witnesses were
allowed to testily oonoernlng the insanity ot the
aoouaed, (aec 9-e altatlon above set forth). The case via5 reversed and rcmandcd, and a .5000na
trial vma had. After asoertalnlng that only
defense would be that or insanity, and after the
aooused had plaocd sevcrnl .cxpcrt wltncsscs upon
the stand, lnoludlw Dr. Johnson of the San Antonio State Dos,pltal, and others, the District Attorney
of Dallas County oallcd Dr. Sohwcnkenbcrg, an out- standing aliens& and psyohfatrlst or Dallas, Texas, Dr. Lcwls Silver of .Dcllao, Texas, end Dr. R. B.
Anderson or the Veterans’ ElosDltel at h’aoo, Tcxm, as rebuttal witnesses, each of whom hsvc supported by sworn statcfients their olaims for oompensatlon
in the followlnk( amouIitsa:
Dr. Sohwenkenbere; Dr. 8llrcr Dr. Anderson - $100.00 - $ 50.00 - 0 35.00 and they Gtato under oath thct suoh~ohargcs arc rcasou- able for the services rendered. The District AttoT- ncy has also made affldavlt that sooh cxpsnaea arc reasonable and necessary.
The Dlstrlot Attorney he3 also m&c alloa- tion for the paymant of blue ?rlnt ooats in the ap- proximate eum of $ZS.OO, sod ohnrges for the ser-
vioes of a hnndwrltlne expert, to-wit: X. A. Tieaver, la the sum of 875.00; aloo the charges for the tue- ployment.ot an assoolated reporter on R habeas oor- pus prooecdlq In the Criminal District Court in oon- ncotion with the case ,of State v. E. R. Wyatt. He was a con-resident of Dallas County, but 1s alleged to have come to Dcllas thrown e bomb into a resl- dcnoe where his former assistant teeoher resided.
The trial of thla ease resulted in a SO-year sentcnee. Upon the trial, it developed that the sald ITyatt denied to a number of stAtementa and letters', hio sipkturs and it mm ncoessnry to cxploy the said 7;. A. Yeaver
346 Honorable Charles A. Tosoh, ;Roze 3
in oonneotion therewith. Kyatt al80 denied mak-
ing oertaln etatementa ln th6 habeas oarpus pro-
ceetiin~, and it was neoosoary to have the testl-
many transoribed for rebuttal purjx~ses. 3%~. X. h.
Weaver has signed en aftldavit that the ohargea
for hls seniaes were reasonable, and the npplica-
tion filed by Mr. Patton states that the amount Is The 8am6 applies to the reasonable end neo6mery.
reporter's bill in the sum of 615.00.
*Artiole 3912e. oeotion 19, eubeeotion (g) pro- vldes as followsr
'@*In addition to other 6nm5 provided in this seotlon,'the dfotrlat attorney or arinlnal distriot
attorney nay be allowed by order OS the Com~Issioners~ Oourt or hia ooutity such amount a8 said oourt may deem neotsoary:to pay for, or ald in, the proper ad- ninistration of’.. the duties of such ofttioe not to ex- oeed lW Thousand rive Eundred t82,SOO.OOj Dollar8 in any one oalendar pear: provided, that suah amounts a5 may be allo%~ed shall b.e al10weU n9on written ap?lioa- tlon of suoh Ul5triot attorney or arinlnal district
attorney showing neces5lty thararor, end provided further that said Cotisoioners' Court may require
any other evldenoe that It may deem neoeseary to @how the neoeaaxty for any such exoonditures, and that It5 Judgment in allwrlng or refusing to allow the same shall be final. No payment therefor except upon en itemized o?,oorn statement of ouoh ex- shall be made penses filed in the manner provided in this seotion other expenses.'
*Mr. Patton, the Dlstriot Attorney of Dallas County, has oomplled with sold artlole 8s to the said p~rovlsions and the 0558 .nuI%bers, eta., has also aeonred afiidavite and sworn statements from the var- ious olalrnante.
The Commiseioners' Court of Dallas Connty has deollned to allow this claim, not that it 15 not a just alelm, and should be paid, end wxld bu paid, if legal, but on the ~rouml that the pay?oent thereof is prohlblted under the recent holding of the Supreme Court of Terns in the ease of Dallas County v. Crosth- wait, not yet reported.
Honorable Charles A. Toaoh. ?fl~O 4
*Please &via8 me rrt your serlieaf possible oon~eniono8 whether or Lot ths OomAaalonerts
Court 0s Dnllae County hea the legal right and
authority to alLow the ebovs olaima under t$e.pm-
vlalona of article 391Qe, aeo. 19, aubaeo. (3).
or onp other lcra of tho State of Texas.
Y'or your lnfometion, the Elatrlot Attorney has not exoeeded the #?,500.00 liznitetion as sat
out In eubcootion (g) .”
In the obee of Oroathwalt v. 8ta&+ oertnln alleped gasbling daviooa were seized by the dietriot attorney. Thg Dla- triot Attorney of Dnllaa County employed a transfer oonpany to heul the epuipxant to a plaoe of storage pending appliontlon, by tpe Distriot Attorney, for ah order o,P destruotion. The dray . e ohnrge maountsd to asme $54.90. Y.
Tha District, Attorney properly mde hpplloation the Comiaaioneral Court for pnyrxnt of aaid ulaia aRainat tha oounty. The Comdtmioaeral Colirt approved lt end provided for payment out ol a fund set n5iGe puxuucnt to the proviaiona of Artlole 39lce, aeatlon 19(g), Vbrnon's ¬ated Civil Set- utes.
?'bo oounty ukitor, one John L. Croathvrdit, exer- olsad hla prarogatlva or,d refused to reoognlze the olain on grouxd 0s irvrlidlty.
Tha Ccmi~tisaiou of A2pcala upheld, the nuditor’a poei- stntlnfi a5 e reason, the feat that the law expreaely tlan; plaars the duty to solze &lle& equipment upon the gaxbllne peaoa offk?era, and not upon the LlaLriat Attorney nor hta of- rio0. booordingiy, it viaa held bhnt said okaim ul~s not wlthln the purview of hrtiole 3912e, J'eotlon lb(g), Vernon*8 hnnotated ClvlZ Stetutas, which pov$bes that:
"(~1. Jn addition to other aunn provided in thla sectfzn. tho district ettoms or orlixlnal
&ls.tricc attorney mey be allowed by order of the ?os.xfaslonera' Court of hla oounty suoh anount as m court !r,oy deem necessary to rsy for, or aid --
*r\aoent deoleion ol Seotion D of the Sox2isslon of
hpeals \rhi>h has not yet been ra~orted.
348 Eonorable Charles A. Toe&, Fc~,e 5
in, she crontr adminlstratlon of ths duties of 3 h offloe, not to exoesd l%o Thousand Bl Hgdrsd (~2,500.00] Dollars in any one oalE:der year; provided, shall be alloued upon written appliaetlon that euch amounts as may be allowed oi such district attorney or orlmlnel dlstriot attorney showing the naoceslty therefor, and provldsd fur- ther that said aotnzissloners* court may require any other evldenoe that it may deem neoessery show the neoesslty for any auoh ergendltur’es, end that its in allowing or reruslng to allow judgment the 8ame ehall be final. No payment thereto?? shall be made exospt upon en itamlzsd sworn statement of euoh axpfx~ses filed 1~ the manor provided in this seation other expenses.** (Undereoorlng ours) The Court In the Crosthwalt aase quoted that portion of Artlole 3912e, aeotion 19(g), whloh is underlined, euprn, ~further, a aertaln portion or seotlon (1) or the- same Artlola whioh la a.~ followsr,
“And euoh 0rfIoer~ shall be entitled to rile oleime for and lssua warrants in payment or all end nsoesssry expenses lnourrsd by him in eotuel the oonduot of his offloe, euoh as etatlonsry, stem@, telephone, trevellnq expensea, . . . end other naosssary expe~ea~*
Then the Court found that: 93~ the llmitationo expressed in the next above quoted portion or the statute the dlstrlat attorney end ths oommlssloners oourt of Dallas county were limited to the kind or axpendlturse mentioned in eel6 statuta. Bince seiizura or &ucbl- ing devises is the duty of peaoa officers and ‘snot the c?uty of the dietriot ettorney and the statutes overnlnf: expenditures of the 6liiae~6Taistrio t ~~~~~~~o’~~~‘~~~‘~h’~~~t~~~. g;af$%i. Ri 1 oounty we8 without authority to allow the expendl- lures 88 a nsoessary expense of the office of dia- *6 . . .’
Honorable Charles A. Toaoh, Pags 6 I, I, trlot attorney oi Dallao County. Casey et al v. !I .: aate. 289 6. b 420 \rrit Therdore * the r4tused) ectlon of tte o&aleslonere 1; al.lowltza tbe aourt alaira 4s e neocssarv emense of the 0rri04 0r dia-
triot attorney belaz without statutory authorltp 1s
14 Rovard et ux v. R endcraon County llr3 *i?o (writ rerueed); Jeft-Davis co& v. %vk et al, 192 S. U. 291 (writ rbfua4d~.n (Undersoor- lng o&x).
_,' The Casey ease, cited by the Court. in the above quote& portlon ol lta aeolalon, held, in erreat, that the gen- -z eral phrase "end other neoeeeary epzense" conprehended only things or the sam kind or olass as those xor4 partfculerly I *' and ap4olrloally eteted. Rrlerly, the rule oi elusdom generia was app1ie.d. The psrtloularized expense8 mentlone~ are stat&- cry, staxnps, telephone, end tmvellng expenses.
The rule 0r idu8443i3 Renbrla alenrly appllen to seo- (1); but it is the oplni on or this Department that the tlon in the Cmethweit deoislon, did not intend to iliigl-y oourt., ::i th4t the entire statute would be qualliled by that rule or : ‘.I' oonstruatlon. If that were true, thr express pur- statutory ,!, pose Or eeotlon (g) would b4 rcsnderad for naught. By its very tems, seotlon (g) seeks~ to provlde~sums &i nddltlon thome pmvlded elsewhere in the statutes.
The Distrlot Attorney 1s required to represent the State in orlmlnel proseoub~one. It la "his duty to do that whioh u ieithful and vlgllirnt dlstrlot attorney would be ex- to do, considering the magnitude and irr?portenoa or the peated 0864, and that nhloh,wus essential and neoeasery to the falth- tul pertoamanae or hla Otrlolal Ir the Co#mlssioners* duty.” Court deemed the expenses enumerated in your letter neoessary or that they sided fn the proper edmlaietretlon of tha dls- tr1ot attorney's dutlea than, 1I the other atetutory requlre- ments have been mat, and you SO steto, we see no reason why those expense items should not be allowed out or the $2,500.00 runa provided ror in seotlon (g),
This does not mean that a dlstrlot attornay rnnp uon- tract to pay so-oalled experts any mars than othar witnesses, exoept In those inetenoea where auoh wltneesas have had to ex- pend efrort In order to qualiltp themselves as experts in a pertlaulilar oa54.
Honorable Oherles A. Toeoh, Page 7 bb.at'the forsgofng fully an8weru Your Trusting
lnpulry, we remain
Youru very truly ATTOR?C?XOENXRAL OF TEXAS WJF:BBB