Case Name: DARNELL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-11-26
Citations: 161 S.W. 971
Docket Number: 
Parties: DARNELL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 161
Pages: 971–972

Head Matter:
DARNELL v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 26, 1913.
On Rehearing, Dec. 17, 1913.)
1. Bail (§ 68 ) — Appeal Bond.
Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 919, fixing the form of recognizance in cases of appeal from convictions of misdemeanor, which concludes, “In order to abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the state of Texas in this case,” a recognizance omitting the three words “in this case” is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeals.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 286; Dec. Dig. § 68. ]
On Rehearing.
2. TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES (§ 79 ) — OE-penses — “Indecent” — “Vulgar” — “Obscene.”
The use of the expression “son of a bitch” in a conversation over the telephone falls within the provision of Pen. Code 1911, art. 471, making the use of vulgar, profane, obscene, or indecent language over or through a telephone a misdemeanor, the term “indecent” meaning unfit to be heard, offensive to modesty and delicacy,” the term “vulgar” signifying “lack of -cultivation or refinement,” while the term “obscene” means “offensive to chastity or modesty,” for the expression used is not merely rude and uncouth.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Telegraphs and Telephones, Cent. Dig. § 22; Dec. Dig. § 79.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 4, p. 3537; vol. 8, pp. 7364, 7831; vol. 6, pp. 4887-4889; vol. 8, p. 7735.]
Appeal from Haskell County Court; A. J. Smith, Judge.
R. H. Darnell was convicted of using vulgar, obscene, profane, and indecent language over and through a telephone, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For otter cases see same topic anfl section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig, Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
Appellant was convicted under an indictment charging that he unlawfully used vulgar, obscene, i>rofane, 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 Tex. Cr. R. 621, 37 S. W. 753, 38 S. W. 203; Brock v. State, 72 S. W. 599; Page v. State, 72 S. W. 1134; Bradley v. State, 72 S. W. 1133,; Mason v. State, 74 S. W. 25; Heinen v. State, 74 S. W. 776; Mallard v. State, 83 S. W., 1115; Armstrong v. State, 77 S. W. 446; Fortenberry v. State, 72 S. W. 586; Fortenberry v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 535, 72 S. W. 588; Adams v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 535, 72 S. W. 588.
Under the circumstances this court has no jurisdiction of this appeal, and the case is therefore dismissed.