This OffIor la In reoelpt of your 1ett.m of Januaq 11, 1939, requesting an opinion a8 to whether the Nepotlam Law prohibits ths imiplOymnt OS the ss00nd wife of a man whose now of the wit0 0r a truster or. e deoeased first wire wm3 a eleter sohool dlstriot.

Tour letter adviasa that there Is living lsaue of the proposed teaohm’s husband by hIa first wife, but thle la slnoe the proposed husband evan during lmmaterlal, tsaohsr’cl the lire or hle firat rtre was not related to the trustee wlth- In the term8 of Artiola 438 of the Penal Coda In that ROII who to eaoh other do not bdoome related by are not otherwise kin 8 0.J. 319. This pre- afriaity merely by marrying rlrterr. oludes the proposition thet thr man*8 seoond rite mm rolatrd by affinity.

Ae raid by 0. f. Bleokley In Oentrrl RI eta. 00. t* Robert8, 91 C3a. Sl3, 18 8. t. 316s

*The groom and bride l eoh eomoa dthln the olrole of $ho other~r kin) but kin end kin em e&Ill no ~Oro related than thay were baroro.~ You are advised, therefore, thet maoh eaploynmnt 18 BOt prohIbited by maid Artfolr 433.

Youra wry truly ATToItNit? O’itmlUL 01 TEXAS