People v. Hand

KNIGHT, J.

Appellant was indicted for the crime of grand theft and upon trial before a jury was found guilty. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial, contending as ground for reversal that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.

[486]

The indictment was based on that portion of section 484 of the Penal Code which declares that every person who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud another of his property, is guilty of theft; and the specific charge made against appellant was that he obtained unlawfully from one Samuel Bright a promissory note for the sum and of the value of $275.

The evidence shows that in January, 1931, appellant, using the fictitious firm name of Ash & Hand, contracted with Bright to do certain repair work on the latter’s house, and to furnish the necessary labor and materials for such purpose, for the sum of $464, payable as follows: $164 in ad-' vanee, and the balance after the- completion of the work, in monthly installments of $25 each. The advance payment was made as agreed and during the progress of the work one installment of $25 was paid, leaving $275 as the balance due upon completion of the job. Shortly before the work was finished appellant obtained from Bright and his wife a promissory note for $275 payable in monthly installments of $25. At the time appellant presented the note for execution and before Bright and his wife consented to sign the same, they asked appellant, according to the testimony introduced by the prosecution, whether all bills incurred in performing the work had been paid and he assured them that such was the fact; and further stated that his partner was a multi-millionaire and that the note would be discounted. The representations so made were shown to be false. The bills incurred in performing the work had not been paid, and in due time after completion of the work liens aggregating $368 were filed against the property, which the Brights were obliged to pay. Furthermore, appellant had no partner, and shortly after obtaining the note he discounted the same with a finance company, receiving 'therefor $244.75. Later, demand was made upon appellant by certain workmen and materialmen for the payment of their claims and he informed them that he had not yet received the money due him from the Brights.