The defendant was convicted of the offense of “ an attempt to commit grand larceny.” It is now insisted that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of the jury, and this brings us to a consideration of the sole question involved in the case, and that is as to the amount and character of evidence necessary to constitute the offense of attempt to commit *77 grand larceny. It is practically admitted that, if the defendant had finally been successful in securing the money of the prosecuting witness Manino, the offense would have been grand larceny. But his hopes and plans in that direction were never consummated, hence a larcen3r was not committed. And it is now insisted by defendant that his schemes, artifices, and acts looking toward his possession of Manino’s money had not progressed to that point of constituting the offense of attempt to commit grand larceny, when the prospective victim became alarmed, and defendant’s labors went for naught.

The facts'are interesting, though the tale has often been told in courts of justice. Manino had four thousand dollars in bank and was desirous of investing in the saloon business. The defendant, a stranger, casually met him, and suggested that he also would like to go into the saloon business, and proposed a partnership. A friendly acquaintance arose between them; Manino was compelled to leave the city for a few days; upon his return defendant immediately called upon him, and suggested the purchase of another place upon better terms than the one they had previously had in view. They went to a distant portion of the city and viewed the proposed purchase, and upon their return, when opposite 125 O’Farrell street, the following occurred, as shown by the testimony of the witness Manino:

*79 This recital of the facts makes it plain to a certainty that defendant was doing his best to defraud Manino of his money. Defendant was playing a confidence game, and “ bunco” is its name. (See definition of “ bunco ” in Century Dictionary.) That Manino was not buncoed out of his money is attributable to his good wife rather than to his good sense.

If defendant had secured the possession of this money to the loss of Manino, it would have been grand larceny. Did he so attempt to secure the possession of it? If so, he is guilty as charged. That the acts he did in pursuance of a preconceived plan constituted an attempt, we have no doubt. An attempt is defined as an effort or endeavor; an act tending toward the accomplishment of a purpose which exceeds a mere intent or design, and falls short of an execution of it. (3 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 97.) Justice Blackburn said in Regina v. Cheeseman, Leigh & C., 140: “ There is no doubt a difference between the preparation incident to the offense and the actual attempt; but, if the actual transaction has commenced which would have ended in the crime if not interrupted, there is clearly an attempt to commit the crime.” In People v. Stites, 75 Cal. 570 , the question as to what in law was sufficient to constitute an attempt was learnedly discussed, and, in that case, upon facts which for legal strength are in no degree comparable to those presented by this record, the defendant was held guilty under the evidence of an attempt to commit a felony.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment and order are affirmed.

Van Fleet J., and Harrison, J., concurred.