Bocchio

People v. Bocchio

Good Law
1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 82·80 Cal. App. 138·251 P. 672
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 2, 1926Docket No. 949.California2,674 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Finch, J.

The defendant has appealed from the judgment herein and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The defendant and Erie Von Hoetzendorff were jointly charged by the indictment herein with the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses. Appellant contends that the court erred in permitting the district attorney to amend the indictment. The parts of the indictment material to the question thus raised are as follows: “The said defendants, and each of them on or about the 10th day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three in the County of Mendocino, State of California, and before the filing of this indictment: That said defendants, and each of them, with intent to defraud Andrew Hoefer of his property hereinafter set forth (then follow allegations of certain false representations); that said Andrew Hoefer . . . was by reason pf such false pretenses and representa tions . . . induced to and he did convey and transfer to said Harry C. Bocchio, certain real property . . . and also assigned and delivered to said Harry C. Bocchio ten 7%% gold bonds of Central Creameries Company; . . . that said real property and said bonds were so secured and obtained by said defendant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.