Munson

Defendant was accused under two separate indictments of grand theft. The two indictments were consolidated. Trial was had and he was found guilty as charged in both indictments. Motion for a new trial was made and denied and this is an appeal from the order and judgment. The main point ilrged for a reversal is that the verdict is contrary to law and the evidence.

The first indictment charged that defendant did feloniously steal, take and carry away certain shares of stock, belonging to one J. A. Daly, in different corporations, of the value of about $4,500. The second indictment charged that he did steal, take and carry away similar property belonging to a different person of the value of about $15,888. The offenses charged are of the character that was formerly' designated as obtaining money under false pretenses. In support of the claim that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, it is urged that the complaining witnesses received for their property all that defendant agreed to give them and hence there was no crime committed. We cannot subscribe to this conclusion as we are of the opinion that there is ample evidence in the record to show that defendant with fraudulent…