Rosenkrantz

Appeal from a judgment of imprisonment and from an order denying to the defendant a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of a felony, the specific offense charged in the information being that she feloniously and fraudulently made and passed a check drawn upon a San Diego bank for the sum of forty-five dollars without having money or credit at that bank with which to meet the demand. The evidence was sufficient to justify the conclusion that the check had been passed as charged in the information, although had the jury believed the statements made by the appellant in her testimony it might have reached a contrary verdict. [1] However, this court has no concern with any attempt to reconcile conflicting testimony, but such a condition of the case does become important in considering certain objections urged to the introduction of testimony, rulings as to which are assigned as errors of the court arising during the course of the trial. [2] The prosecution not only made proof of the passing of the particular check set out in the information, but showed transactions had at a prior time between the appellant and persons other than the original complainant herein. This testimony, if…