Cohen

We are of the opinion that the judgments and the order denying a motion for a new trial should be affirmed. Appellant was charged in four counts with having, forged and passed as many checks. His first contention is that an information based upon section 470 of the Penal Code is insufficient to support a conviction where it appears that the drawer of the forged instrument is a fictitious character. Since the amendment of 1905 to section 470, this contention is no longer tenable. (People v. Gayle, (1927) 202 Cal. 159 [ 259 Pac. 750 ], citing People v. Whitaker, (1924) 68 Cal. App. 7 [ 228 Pac. 376 ], People v. Lucas, (1924) 67 Cal. App. 452 [ 227 Pac. 709 ], and People v. Jones, (1909) 12 Cal. App. 129 [ 106 Pac. 724 ].) The information in People v. Lucas was in substance that found in each of the four counts in the instant ease. (See, also, People v. Winthrop, (1928) 88 Cal. App. 591 [ 264 Pac. 263 ], People v. Carmona, (1926) 80 Cal. App. 159 [ 251 Pac. 315 ], and People v. Bernard, (1913) 21 Cal. App. 56 [ 130 Pac. 1063 ].)

There was evidence that the names appended to the four checks had no accounts in the banks upon which the checks were drawn. This constituted prima facie…