Ribolsi

— The defendant was convicted of feloniously receiving and buying stolen goods for his own gain and profit, and to prevent the owner thereof from again possessing them, under section 496 of the Penal Code.

.From the judgment rendered against him, and an order refusing a new trial, he has taken this appeal.

He contends that the information on which he was tried was obnoxious to a demurrer he filed thereto, in the respects that it does not give the particular circumstances of the offense charged, and that it is not direct and certain as to such offense; that it does not set forth the names of the persons from whom the goods were received, or the names of those w'ho stole them; that it is not direct and certain as to the ownership of such goods.

The information states, among other things, that the stolen goods received by the defendant, at the city and county of San Francisco, were the “personal property of the estate of George H. Tay and Oscar J. Backus, copartners in business, and doing business in said city and *496 county under the firm name and style of George H. Tay & Co.”

We do not perceive hut what the defendant was thereby informed in ordinary and concise language,…