Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-384 Page: 3 of 5
5 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Weldon Cabaniss, page 3
House Bill No. 360, Acts 50th Legislature, 1947, Regu-
lar Session, Chapter 149, page 253, codified under Article 975j,
Vernon's Penal Code, was enacted at a later date, This Act pro-
vide s :
"Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any per-
son, firm or corporation, or their agent or agents,
to upe a seine, strike net. shrimp trawl, gill net
or trammel net in ..y of the waters of Copano Bay,
Mission Bay and connecting waters west of State
Highway No, S in Aransas County~ Refugio County and
San Patricio County .
"Sec. 3. All laws or parts of laws that con-
flict with this Act are hereby repealed.
". . ." (Emphasis ours),
The provisions of Article 941, Vernon's Penal Code, were
incorporated in the clause of Article 952 1-10 tsura relating to
the unlawful use of shrimp trawls and certain types of nets; how-
ever, with the enactment of House Bill Noo 360, 50th Legislature,
supra, containing specific provisions relating to the use of such
apparatus in Copano and Mission Bays, the applicability of Article
941, sura, to these waters has ceased 39 TexoJuro 150, Statutes,
Sec. 82
Section 3 of House Bill Noo 360, 50th Legislature, supra,
purports to repeal all laws or parts of laws in conflict with its
provisions. A conflict between statutes is said to exist where one
permits or licenses that which another forbids and prohibits, See
definitions of "conflict" in Words and Phrases, Vol.o 8A, page 131,
Article 952 1-10 suumra, prohibits the possession of seines, shrimp
trawls and a variety of nets in those tidal waters where the use
of this equipment has been forbidden0 Although House Bill Noo 360,
50th Legislature, supra, prohibits the use of se.nes, shrimp trawls
and various nets in Copano and Mission Bays and in certain of the
connecting waters, no section of that Act denounces the mere posses-
sion of such equipment in these waters0 Thus, it appears that the
Legislature did not intend for this Act to comprehend the entire
subject matter relating to the prohibitions against equipment of
this nature insofar as the aforementioned waters are concerned, but
rather that the mandate of the Act should be considered in_ pari
materia with the non-conflicting provisions of the existing law on
the subject. Ex parte Spann, 51+ SoW2d 10 (TexeCrimo 1932). In
our opinion the provisions of Article 952 1 -10O were not repealed by
House Bill No. 360, Oth Legislature; moreover, the possession of(WW-384)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-384, text, March 5, 1958; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth266996/m1/3/: accessed June 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.