People v. Bowles

HAHN, J.,

pro

tem.

The defendant was charged by information filed by the district attorney of Riverside County with the crime commonly known as “issuing a bank check Avithout sufficient funds.” The information also charged the defendant with having suffered two prior conAÚctions of felonies. A plea of not guilty was entered to the check charge. As to the charges of prior convictions, the defendant asserted that they were untrue.

The jury returned a verdict, of guilty as to the check charge and found that each of the prior convictions charged was true.

It appears without conflict that the defendant on Saturday, August 11, 1928, about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, entered the store of the Franzen Hardware Company in Riverside and negotiated for the purchase of certain merchandise. Before the sale was consummated, he made inquiry as to whether or not the store would accept a check which he had in the sum of $85 drawn upon a Los Angeles bank by one E. M. BurgAvald, and made payable to F. E. Nesbit, the name under which the defendant was going in Riverside. Defendant stated that he had recently come to Riverside and had rented a house on St. Andrews Boulevard ; that his family would arrive a few days later and that he wished to purchase certain articles for use in the house. He further stated that he had opened an account at the First National Bank of Riverside, tó support which he displayed to the credit manager a pass-book made out to F. E. Nesbit, which showed a deposit of $185. When the credit manager refused to take the $85 check drawn upon the Los Angeles bank, defendant asked him if he would take his check for a sum in excess of the amount of his proposed purchase, drawn on the First National Bank of Riverside; that it being Saturday afternoon he wanted some cash to enable him to make a trip to Idyllwild, The credit manager

[466]

of the store finally agreed to accept his check for $60, and when defendant had selected the articles he desired, which amounted to $37.50, the defendant was given $22.50 in cash. With regard to the time of delivery of the goods, defendant stated that he would be occupied for a while in shopping, but that he would be at the house about 4 o’clock, at which time it was agreed that the goods should be delivered. When the goods arrived at the house at the time agreed upon the defendant was not there. The goods were left upon the porch.