This is an appeal from a judgment wherein the ■ defendant was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a lesser but included offense contained in the information.

In an information filed in Los Angeles County, the defendant was charged with a violation of section 288 Penal Code. The information set forth that on March 20, 1958, the defendant committed a lewd and lascivious act in violation of the provisions of section 288 upon the body, members and private parts of a named 10-year-old girl by touching and feeling 'the body of said child with intent then and there of arousing, appealing to and gratifying the lust and sexual desires of the child and of the defendant. Defendant pleaded not guilty and was tried before a court without a jury and found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

A résumé of the facts is as follows: the child in question was a -10-year-old girl enrolled in the fifth grade of the Glassell Park School. On a morning during the latter part of March, 1958 the child left her home about 8 :45 o ’clock to attend school. She was walking and while passing by the defendant’s house, the defendant offered her a ride in his car and she accepted. When the child was inside the automobile the defendant showed her a magazine containing some lewd pictures and the picture of a woman “with tiger pants on.” The defendant asked the child what kind of pants she had on and with that lifted up her dress. He touched her stomach and inside and outside of her undergarments. The touching went on for several minutes while defendant and the child were in the automobile in front of the defendant’s house. The defendant then drove the car with the child to her school and told her not to tell anyone. When the child arrived at the school about 9 a.m. she was crying and told a girl friend what had occurred. The child was taken to her teacher and the school clerk where she complained of what she had experienced.

The judge said at the conclusion of the testimony of the witnesses:

The defendant now contends that the “verdict of the court was inconsistent” and that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty.

In brief, appellant’s entire argument is summed up as:

We cannot agree with the appellant. It was appropriately said in People v. Perkins, 147 Cal.App.2d 793, 795 [ 305 P.2d 932 ] :

The court held in effect that the answer was yes. (See Rodriguez v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.2d 500 [ 165 P.2d 1 ].)

The evidence was clearly sufficient to sustain the finding and judgment of the trial court. It is not our province to reweigh the evidence. (See People v. Newland, 15 Cal. 2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ] ; People v. Cohen, 107 Cal.App.2d 334, 342 [ 237 P.2d 301 ] ; People v. Alonzo, 158 Cal.App.2d 45, 47 [ 322 P.2d 42 ].)

Furthermore, as said in People v. Powell, 34 Cal.2d 196, 205 [ 208 P.2d 974 ] :

This case closely parallels the Perkins case, supra, wherein it was said at page 797:

“ Defendant’s acquittal of a violation of section 288 of the Penal Code is not a bar to his conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.”

The trial court stated the whole matter clearly at the time of sentence when he said: “You are very lucky in this case; do you know that?”

The judgment is affirmed.

Wood, P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.