Meadows

Defendant was convicted on each of eleven counts in an action wherein he was charged with the commission of the crime of grand theft. Each separate offense had its inception in a general, foundational misstatement of facts made by defendant and which applied to each of the other offenses of which defendant was convicted. In the commission of each of the offenses which followed the first offense an additional misrepresentation of facts was made by defendant.

The judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed on the following grounds:

(1) The evidence as to each count of the information was legally sufficient to support the verdict.

(2) Each of the several acts charged in the respective separate counts of the information constituted a distinct criminal offense; and no error was committed by the trial court in trying defendant on each of such counts. (Sec. 484, Pen. Code; People v. McCann, 96 Cal. App. 664, 667 [ 274 Pac. 621 ].)

(3) No prejudicial error was committed by the trial court either in the admission of evidence which was received over the objection of defendant, or in the rejection of evidence sought to be introduced by defendant. Although it…