Case Name: CROW v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-03-12
Citations: 260 S.W. 573
Docket Number: No. 7438
Parties: CROW v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 260
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
CROW v. STATE.
(No. 7438.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 12, 1924.
Rehearing Denied April 16, 1924.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
Licenses <&wkey;42 (4) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for personation of certified public accountant.
Evidence establishing that defendant, not having a certificate under the statute, represented himself to be a certified public accountant only to a member of a city commission when endeavoring to secure the audit of their books, and that he used the initials C. P. A. after his name in negotiations with that member, 1ield sufficient to sustain a conviction, under Vernon’s Complete Tex. St. (Penal Code) arts. 999rr to 999vv, though he did not so hold himself out to the public.
<§sso3Tor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from Wichita County Court, at Law; Guy Rogers, Judge.
D. R. Crow was convicted of holding himself out as a certified public accountant, in-violation of a statute, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Mathis & Caldwell, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Weldon, McDonald & Cummings, of Wichita Falls, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of holding himself out as a certified public accountant contrary to the act of the Legislature of this state as set out in Vernon's Complete Texas Statutes of 1920 (Penal Code), embraced in the several sections designated as article 999, "rr" to "vv".
It was shown that the appellant had not been accorded a certificate as a "certified public accountant" under the terms of the statute of this state, but that he was holding himself out as a certified public accountant by reason of having a certificate from the "National Association of Certified Accountants, Incorporated, Washington, D. C."
There is no material difference between the principles controlling the appellant's case and those in the case of Henry v. State, No. 7028, 260 S. W. 190, which is this day affirmed. Upon the authority of this case, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.