This will sCknowledge receipt bf your letter requesting our opinion as to the wet or dry status of l Fortion of precinct one 00 your county under the liquor laws. We quote from your letter as followe:

"On December 21, 1917, l county-wide.prohibition election was held inXilam County. This election was carried for prohibitton. At the time of this election both Precinct 1 and Precinct g(being ,adjacent precincts) of this county were wet. The dry statue of MilamCounty did not change until 1933, when by another county-wide elec%ion Milam County became wet.

"During~ the interim between 1917 and 1933 a certain portion of Precinct 5 w& cut therefrom by the action of the Commissioners Court of this county and added to Precinct 1. From 1933 to 1936 beer was sold in Precinct 5' x well aa' Precinct 1. In 1936 an election was held in Precinct 5, as the same was then defined by virtue of the action of the Commissioners' Court as aforesaid, which said election carried for prohibition. The question has now arisen as to whether or not that portion of Precinct 5 which was taken from Precinct 5 and added to Precinct 1 prior to 1933 is wet or dry." Following'Ithe cotity-wide election of 1917, the whole of Milam County become dry territory, there being no sanction for wet precincts *ithin dry counties. See Coker v. -Kneicik (Tex. Comm. App.) 126 Tex. 440, 87 S. W. (2d) 1076, Citing Ex parte Fields, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 46 S. W. 1127; Kimberly v. Morris, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 592, 31s. W. 809: State v. Ha+vey, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 691, 33 S. W. 885; Adams vi Kelly, 17 Tex. Civ. A??. 497, 44 s. w. 529.

Honorable W. A. Morrison, Page #2 (O-189)

In 1919, Section 20 of Article 16 of the Texas Co?stltution.was amended to establish prohibition throughout the State. The amendment' If 1933, authorized the sale of vinous and malt liquor of three and two-tenths percent (3.2%) alcholic content by weigl;t,but provided that all counties and political subdivisions thereof, wherein the sale of intoxicating liquors had been prohibited by local option elections prior to the prohibit∨' %nendment, it shoul!oonti.nie to be unlawful to "manufacture, sell, barter or exchange" any liquors capable of producing intoxication "unless and until a majority of the qualified voters insaid county or political subdivision thereof voting in an election held for such purpose shall determine it to be lawful * * *."

When Milam County votep wet In 1933, the sale of beer becoile leg 1 except in those precincts whck&nlocal option had. been l dopted,through t recinct elections. Jackson v. State, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 140, 118 S. W. (2d) 313. There- fore;after the election the sale of beer becene legal In both precinct 1 end precinct 5, according to your statement.

As both precincts occupied the same st@s at the time the Commissioners' Court redefined the boundaries thereof) it is our opinion that the action of the Court in changing the areas of the precinots had no effect insofar as the prohibition question is concerned.

In 1935, Section 20 of Article 16 of the Constitution was again amended to permit the sale of all liquors, except in counties and political subdivisions thereof wherein local option had been adopted prior to 1919. Paragraph (b) of this amendment required the Legislature to make provision+ for local option elections in counties, justice precincts or incorporated towns or cities. TIN election of 1936 in precinct 5 of your county was thereby authorized.

You' ere therefore od.rl:sed that the portion of precinct 5 which was t&en from precinct 5 and added to precinct 1 prior to 1933 is wet territory, based upon the facts submitted by you.

Yours very truly, AF'PROVED FEB. 5, 1940

s/GERAIDc. PiANN AITOPNEY@NEXALOPTEXAS ATl'CPIil?YCEWE!lULclFTEXAS

s/ Benjamin Woodnll APPROVEDOPIWIOIV COMMI'Il'EE

BY B. W. B.

CHAIRMAN By

BcnjaminWoodall Assistant W:rs