Criminal Law—Obtaining Monet Under False Pretenses—Evidence.—In a prosecution for obtaining money under false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, in which the defendant was convicted, held, that the verdict of the jury was sustained by the evidence.

Id.—Representations as to Value of Property—Report op Expert not in Evidence—Remark op Court.—In a prosecution for obtaining money by reason of false pretenses and representations as to the value of the property of a certain mining corporation, in the stock of which the prosecuting witness was induced to invest, where a witness for the defendant, in answer to a question if he knew the value of certain mining property owned by the corporation, had stated that he knew it only from the report of a mining engineer, and volunteered the testimony that the latter placed its value at a specified amount, a remark by the court, in striking out such testimony, that “even if the report is here, it would not prove the fact of value. A report don’t prove anything,” will be deemed to have been without prejudice, if there was no report before the jury, and no offer by the defendant, at any time during the trial, to introduce it.

Id.—Hearsay Evidence—Information Derived from Outside Sources. In such prosecution, a witness for the defendant cannot testify as to what report the expert made, as such evidence would be hearsay, nor can he testify as to his opinion of the value derived from information from other sources, without designating the sources from which it had been derived.

Id.—Instructions—Credulity op Prosecuting Witness.—It is proper to instruct the jury, in such a prosecution, that the defendant could not escape the consequences of his false representations on the ground of the weak credulity of the prosecuting witness, if it appeared that the false representations were made with the design to deceive and thereby obtain money from her, and that they had that effect.

Id.—Opportunity zor Investigation.—In a criminal prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses, the rule that obtains in a civil action for deceit under which a prospective purchaser, having the opportunity, is required to investigate for himself the truth of representations as to value, has no application, for the reason that in a criminal case the offense is committed against the public, and not against the individual, and is prosecuted in the interest of the public and not of the prosecuting witness.

Id.—Falsity or all Representations not Necessary—Knowledge and Intent—Instructions.—It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove all of the alleged false representations contained in the information, but it is sufficient to prove that the defendant made any one of them, and that the prosecuting witness relied upon such representation and was thereby deceived, and parted with her money on the strength thereof; and a particular instruction to that effect is not erroneous merely because it omits a direction that, in order to convict the defendant, the jury must find that he knew the representation was false and that he made it with intent to defraud,- if previous portions of the instructions, correctly defining the offense of obtaining money under false pretenses, stated that the intent of the defendant to defraud was a necessary element of the crime. If the defendant had desired a more specific instruction on that point he should have made a request to that effect.

Id.—Statements in Presence or Dependant—Evidence.—An instruction that ‘‘ to constitute such offense it is necessary that the particular representation or pretense complained of should have been made to the person alleged to have been defrauded,” and an instruction that "a statement by a third person in the presence of the defendant and the prosecuting witness is not itself evidence of the fact related in the statement, but such statement is admissible primarily for the purpose of showing, or tending to show, the conduct of the defendant at the time of the alleged false representations,” are not contradictory. The conduct of the defendant when the statement was made in his presence would be a corroborating circumstance” authorized to be shown by section 1110 of the Penal Code.

Id.—Reading Testimony to Jury After Retiring.-—Where the jury, after retiring, came into court, and requested to have certain testimony, including that of the defendant, read to them, the court is only required to have read to them so much of the defendant’s testimony as they may desire.