DocketNumber: Docket No. 127.
Citation Numbers: 2 P.2d 450, 115 Cal. App. 677
Judges: BARNARD, P.J.
Filed Date: 7/27/1931
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The defendant was charged with the crime of making, drawing, uttering and delivering a check upon a bank without sufficient funds to meet the same, the information containing three counts. In the first count it is charged that the defendant on or about the fifteenth day of May, 1930, in the county of Fresno, committed a felony in that he, with intent to defraud Arthur R. Lindburg, Inc., a corporation, and also the Fresno Branch of the Bank of America, made, drew, uttered and delivered to Arthur R. Lindburg, Inc., a check, drawn upon the Fresno Branch of the Bank of America, knowing at the time that he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with said bank to meet said check. The other two counts relate to other checks given in the month of June, 1930. The defendant was acquitted on counts two and three and found guilty as charged in count one of the information. This appeal is from the judgment, and from the order denying a motion for a new trial.
[1] The first ground urged for a reversal is, that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence what purported to be the original ledger sheet of the bank named, showing the defendant's account at that bank for the months of May and June, 1930. According to this ledger sheet, defendant's account with the bank was opened on May 28, 1930. The assistant cashier of this bank appeared as a witness and testified that this ledger sheet was compiled by another person in the bank and that he would not say that it was done under his personal direction. Appellant urges that, under the circumstances, this ledger sheet constituted hearsay evidence and should not have been admitted. He relies onPeople v. Frey,
[2] The only other point raised by the appellant is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict, in that the intent to defraud was not shown. Appellant testified that he was a dealer in second-hand cash registers and office equipment. The check involved in the first cause of action was given as a first payment upon an automobile. The check in the second cause of action was given some three weeks later to another automobile dealer, as the first payment on another automobile. The check involved in the third cause of action was given two days later to a garage, the nature of the transaction not appearing. In the transaction involved in the first cause of action, the appellant, as a first payment upon this automobile, gave the dealer $5 in cash and the check in question, signing a contract covering the balance. He also promised to bring in a cash register as additional security, which he later did. He first argues that an absence of criminal intent is shown by his giving this cash register as additional security on the balance of the contract. It may first be observed that this additional security was on the balance of the contract and had no relation to the check here in question, or to the first payment on the automobile. [3] It is also the law that it is not necessary in a case of this character, to show that the check as issued results in financial loss to the party to whom it is given (People v. Cortze,
We think the evidence is sufficient in the respects questioned to sustain the verdict of the jury.
The judgment and order are affirmed.
Griffin, J., pro tem., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on August 10, 1931.