Case Name: R. H. Darnell v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-11-26
Citations: 72 Tex. Crim. 271
Docket Number: No. 2796
Parties: R. H. Darnell v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 271–273

Head Matter:
R. H. Darnell v. The State.
No. 2796.
Decided November 26, 1913.
Rehearing granted and affirmed December 17, 1913.
1.—Indecent Language—Recognizance—Words and Phrases.
Where the words “in this case” were omitted in the recognizance, the same was defective; however, a sufficient recognizance being filed thereafter, the appeal is reinstated.
2.—Same—Indecent Language—Telephone—Statutes Construed.
Where defendant was convicted under article 471, Penal Code, for using indecent, etc., language over the telephone by using the word, “son-of-a-bitch,” the same constituted an offense, and it was not necessary that such word was used in anger or otherwise, or to the person to whom he was talking.
3.—Same—Indecent Language—Case Stated.
Where, upon trial of using indecent language, etc., over a telephone, the evidence showed that the defendant used the word, “son-of-a-bitch,” the conviction was sustained.
Appeal from the County Court of Haskell. Tried below before the Hon. A. J. Smith.
Appeal from a conviction of using obscene and indecent language over the telephone; penalty, a fine of $5.
The opinion states the case.
W. H. Murchison, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted under an indictment charging that he unlawfully used vulgar, obscene, profane and indecent language over and through a telephone.
The Assistant Attorney-General makes the point that this court has no jurisdiction because the recognizance is not in compliance with the statute in that it leaves off the three words "in this case" in the form prescribed by the statute, article 919, C. C. P.
In the opinion of the writer this should not have been held a fatal defect in the recognizance. However, this court has in so many cases held this defect fatal and dismissed the cases because thereof that the court is not now willing to overrule all these cases. We cite some of them. Cryer v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 621; Brock v. State, 72 S. W. Rep., 599; Page v. State, 77 S. W. Rep., 1134; Bradley v. State, 72 S. W. Rep., 1133; Mason v. State, 74 S. W. Rep., 25; Heinen v. State, 74 S. W. Rep., 776; Mallard v. State, 83 S. W. Rep., 1114; Armstrong v. State, 77 S. W. Rep., 446; Fortenberry v. State, 72 S. W. Rep., 586; Fortenberry v. State, 72 S. W. Rep., 588; Adams v. State, 44 Texas Crim. Rep., 534.
Under the circumstances this court has no jurisdiction of this appeal and the case is therefore dismissed.
Dismissed,.