Flowers

The defendant was convicted under the charge of having obtained personal property of one Rinker by means of false representations and pretenses.- He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

It is first contended that the court was in error in overruling an objection to the introduction of evidence and in denying a motion in arrest of judgment. The point made in that behalf is that the information did not contain a statement of facts sufficient to constitute the public offense attempted to be charged. It is argued by counsel that no “causal connection” is shown between the alleged false pretenses and the effect attributed to them. In the information it was alleged that appellant represented and pretended that he was the owner of and possessed of the title to a certain printing plant; that he was lawfully entitled to sell and convey an interest therein; that Rinker, believing the representations and pretenses as alleged to be true, and relying upon the same, was deceived thereby, * and paid to appellant the sum of $130 in money and delivered to him liberty bonds of the value of $95 and an automobile of the value of $400. It was then alleged as…