People v. Williams

PLUMMER, J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of issuing a check without having sufficient funds on deposit in the drawee bank to pay the same. The defendant’s motion for a new trial having been denied, he appeals therefrom and from the judgment of conviction rendered herein.

It appears from the transcript that some time prior to the issuance of the check upon which this action is based, to wit, in the month of August, 1923, the defendant sold to one Roy A. Mast certain royalties in oil wells at Signal Hill, in the state of California, for which royalties Mast paid to Williams the sum of two thousand four hundred dollars. At the time of the payment of the said two thousand four hundred dollars Williams agreed to deliver to Mast the following day said royalties or the writings, or whatever instruments he had evidencing the same, or his right thereto. These royalties were not delivered as agreed by the defendant, an

d

[171]

nothing was done in relation thereto until the month of November, when the said Roy A. Mast, being dissatisfied with the nondelivery of the royalties, called upon the defendant and demanded the same or the return of his money. It appears that upon this interview it was agreed between the defendant and Mast that the money should be returned, and the defendant thereupon delivered to Mast a check upon a bank in 'Stockton for a portion of said sum. This check was returned unpaid on account of there being insufficient funds in the bank at Stockton to meet the same, and thereupon the said Roy A. Mast again called upon the defendant at the Thayer Apartments, in the city of Sacramento, and stated to the defendant the facts concerning the nonpayment of the check theretofore delivered to him by the defendant. Thereupon the defendant drew and delivered to the said Mast a cheek drawn on the Bank of Sacramento for the sum of one thousand dollars. 'This check was not paid on account of insufficient funds and is the basis of the present prosecution.

On the part of the appellant it is contended that there was no consideration for the execution and delivery of the check in question, and, also, that at the time of its execution and delivery, the defendant informed the said Roy A. Mast that he did not have sufficient funds in said bank to meet the same, but that he would deposit a sufficient amount to cover the sum of said check within a few days. This statement is denied by the witness Mast. It is also contended by the appellant that the said Roy A. Mast suffered no loss or detriment 'by reason of the issuance of the