Criminal Law—Obtaining Note under False Pretenses—Exchange of Land—Sufficiency of Evidence—Questions for Jury.—Evidence examined and held sufficient to support verdict of conviction.

Id.—Caveat Emptor — Inapplicable Maxim— Reasonable Belief of False Pretenses.—The maxim or doctrine of caveat emptor, as known in civil cases, has no application to a criminal charge of obtaining a promissory note under false pretenses, as part of the consideration for a conveyance of land, the acceptance of which was induced by false and fraudulent representations. In determining whether the defrauded party really believed and acted upon the representations of the accused in such case, it is proper to inquire whether they were of a character probably to induce belief in his mind, or in the mind of a person of ordinary intelligence.

Id.—Credulity of Person Defrauded.—But the guilt of the accused does not depend upon the degree of folly or credulity of the person defrauded.

Id.—Venue—Place of Delivery of Note.—An indictment for the offense of defrauding the maker of a promissory note by means of false and fraudulent pretenses may be found and tried in the county in which the possession or delivery of the note was obtained as the result of the false and fraudulent pretenses, although they were made in another county.

Id.—Once in Jeopardy.—The record of a former case in which the defendant was tried for defrauding one of the makers of the joint note of a note described as his, by means of false pretenses, does not sustain a plea of once in jeopardy for the offense charged of obtaining the joint note signed by such maker and another person by means of false pretenses.

■Id.—Pendency of Former Action.—The pendency undetermined of the former action was no obstacle to the finding and trial of the indictment for obtaining the joint note under false pretenses.