Hamilton

The judgment following the conviction of defendant on each of three counts in an indictment wherein he was charged with the commission of the crime of grand theft, as well as the order .by which his motion for a new trial was denied, are affirmed upon the following grounds, to wit:

The evidence adduced on the trial of the action was legally sufficient to support the verdict and the ensuing judgment thereon.

The pertinent facts were that defendant contracted to purchase all the lots which constituted the town site of the town of Ripley, as well as 110 acres which adjoined the town site, for the purchase price of which defendant agreed to give his note and trust deed for the sum of $119,000. Thereupon defendant caused a corporation to be formed, to which he transferred his contract of purchase of the property, in payment of which the corporation issued to defendant all its capital stock. Afterward, defendant acquired from the seller of the property a deed to the 110 acres, but never acquired any legal title to the lots in the town site; nor did he ever execute his promissory note or trust deed in favor of the seller of the property which, according to the agreement, was to be…