Your request for a8 opinion on the,above stated question ha8 been reoeived'by thii bfWo$. .

Article 1052, Code cf Criminal Procedure, reado as follanse '"Three'dollars rhall be paid by the ccunty ta the county judge, or judge of the court at law, end two dollars and fifty cents she31 be paid bythe oounfq to the justice of the peace, for each oriminal action tried and finally dispcied of befcre h5xb Presided, however, that in all countlea having a population of 20,000 or less,,the justice of the peaoe shall receive a trial fee of three dollars. Such judge or jurtioe &all present te the Coxvairrionsrs' Court of his county at a regular term thereof, a written l ooouat speoi- fylng each criminal action in which he claims such fee, oertified by oertaia jydge or justice to be acrmot and filed withthe county clerk. The C!cmmOssioners'-Court &all approve such ao- oount for such amount a8 they find to be correct, and order a draft to be issued upon the county treasury in favor of suoh judge or justice for the maount so approved. Provided the Com- missioners’ Court shall not pay oqy amount or trial fee in any case tried and in which an aoquittal is had unlerr the State of Texas nes represented ia the trial of said cause bythe oountJl attorney cr his arrlntant, orimiaal district attorney or his assistant, and the oertifioato of said atterney ir attached to said aooount oertwig to the faot that raid cause wans tried, md the State of Texas was reprerented, and that In hie judg- ment there was suffiolent evidenoe in said cause tc demand a trial of the acme."

In the cadge of Braokenridge v. State, 11 S.W. 6SG, the in passing upon a similar questicm, used the following languages oourt,

"The oaae must have been tried md finally dispcsed of before him, he must bth try and finally dispose cf it, suoh ia the plain language of the statute. The trial is an examination before a competent triMcal, aooord- ing to the laws ef the land, of the facts put in issue *2 Hem. Joe J. Fisher, page 2 (O-391)

in a case, for tho purpcse of determining ruoh iarueo.

*A dilPaisra1 of the case is to send it out of the oourt without a trial upon any issue involv- od in it. It ir the final dirporition of that particular case, lut it is not a trial of It." In the oaso; Riohardson v. State, 4 8.11. (2) 79, holdn in offoct that when the case was disposed of bgmotien to quash, the County Judgo ~8 ontitlod to a foo odor Article 1062, Cods of Criminal Proooduro, payable by the county, m do not think the oa8o l atabliohod a different rule as laid down in the ease of Braokonridge v. State, rupra, for there is a diatinotion in amotion to quash and a motion tc dismiss.

The plain and spooifio language of Artiole 1052, SUPZ-II, is that the judgo and justice of the peace must both try and finally dispom of the case before him to be entitled to the ~foo provided thorsin.

This doprbnont has ropoatodly hold that a justice of tho poaoo is not ontitlod to tho foes provided by Article 1032, supra, when tho caoo io dismissed upon motion of the &ate's attorney,

You are rospoctfully advised and it is the opinion of this department that the justice of tho peaoo is not entitled to 8uch foe as prwrdod njr Article 1052, Dpdo of Criminal Proooduro, supra, whore thore lo 810.' trial of the case boforo him but is dismissed upon the motion of conntyattcrnoy or his assistant, the criminal district l ttornoy or his assistant, or any other l ttornoy representing the otate.

Trusting that the foregoing answora ycur inquiru, wo remain

Yours vory truly ATTCRNEYCEI?W4LOPTEXAS By /e/ArdollUllliams Ardoll till&i AssSatmt