People v. Cummings

There was a former prosecution of Cummings, the defendant here, resulting in a judgment of conviction which was reversed in this court on the ground (among others appearing) of variance between the indictment and proof; it being held that the charge in that action of procuring by means of fraudulent representations the promissory, note of one C. Schnelle was not sustained by proof of obtaining by such means the joint note of C. Schnelle and L. W. Schnelle. (Peo *271 ple v. Cummings, 117 Cal. 497 .) After that decision the indictment in the present case was found, charging defendant with procuring by false and fraudulent representations, particularly set forth, the promissory note of said C. and L. W. Schnelle; he was again convicted, hence the present appeal.

It is contended that there was no evidence to justify the verdict of guilty. The trial court instructed the jury—properly it would seem—to disregard certain portions of the evidence submitted by the prosecution, and the matters left for their consideration related mainly to the character and consequences of divers representations made by defendant concerning a tract of land owned by him, containing sixteen and one-half…