Kaminsky

This is an appeal from a judgment whereby defendant was convicted of grand theft under Penal Code, section 487, subdivision 1. The evidence shows that defendant took $600 from an elderly woman by an ancient trick sometimes known as the “pigeon drop.” There is no question of the sufficiency of the evidence.

Defendant’s first point is “The information fails to set forth specific acts constituting an offense or to give adequate notice to the defendant upon which to prepare and present a defense.”

This point was decided adversely to defendant in People v. Anderson, 55 Cal.2d 655 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 500 , 361 P.2d 32 ], The Supreme Court upheld an information identical in form to the information in this case, and pointed out that under our practice the transcript of the evidence before the committing magistrate augments the formal allegations of the pleading to give the defendant ample notice of the details of the offense. (Accord: People v. O'Hara, 184 Cal.App.2d 798, 808-809 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 114 ].) Defendant here does not contend that she did not receive a copy of the preliminary transcript.

Defendant’s second contention is that she was deprived of due process by the fact that the…