People v. Kingsbury

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty on four counts of grand theft, after trial before a jury, defendant appeals. The jury also found that on three previous occasions defendant had been convicted of felonies.

There is likewise an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial and “from an order made after judgment affecting the substantial right of’’ defendant.

The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to the People (respondent), the essential facts are:

About June 12, 1943, defendant called on Mr. Lunsman stating that he was a representative of the Standard Oil Company and that it was going to construct a pipe line to certain

[130]

lands in Monterey County. Defendant offered to sell Mr. Lunsman a one-ninth interest in the land to be crossed for the sum of $500. This offer, Mr. Lunsman accepted and paid the agreed price to defendant.

On or about June 16, 1943, defendant offered Mr. Lunsman a one-third interest in the land if he would pay an additional $1,000. This Mr. Lunsman did. On June 18, 1943, defendant offered Mr. Lunsman a one-half interest in the land if he would pay an additional $750. This offer was likewise accepted and Mr. Lunsman gave defendant his check for $750.

On June 25, 1943, defendant represented to Mr. Lunsman that he had an additional piece of land across which an oil company was going to place a pipe line and that he would sell a one-half interest in his land to Mr. Lunsman for $375. Mr. Lunsman accepted this offer and paid defendant $375.

Defendant was not an employee or a representative of the Standard Oil Company. Neither did the company at any time intend to build a pipe line across the lands described by defendant, nor did defendant at any time convey to Mr. Lunsman any interest in the lands described by defendant.

Defendant urges reversal of the judgment on five propositions which will be stated and answered hereunder seriatim:

First:

There is not any substantial evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury.