Hand

Appellant was indicted for the crime of grand theft and upon trial before a jury was found guilty. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial, contending as ground for reversal that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The indictment was based on that portion of section 484 of the Penal Code which declares that every person who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud another of his property, is guilty of theft; and the specific charge made against appellant was that he obtained unlawfully from one Samuel Bright a promissory note for the sum and of the value of $275.

The evidence shows that in January, 1931, appellant, using the fictitious firm name of Ash & Hand, contracted with Bright to do certain repair work on the latter’s house, and to furnish the necessary labor and materials for such purpose, for the sum of $464, payable as follows: $164 in ad-' vanee, and the balance after the- completion of the work, in monthly installments of $25 each. The advance payment was made as agreed and during the progress of the work one installment of $25 was paid,…