(Syllabus.)

1. False Pretenses — Obtaining Money by Means of "False or Bogus Check." Obtaining money by means and use of a check upon a bank, in which the drawer at the time had no funds or credit with which to meet the same, and which he had no reason to believe would honor such check upon presentation at said bank for payment, is within the meaning of chapter 33, Session Laws of Oklahoma 1923, making it a felony to obtain money or property by means and use of a "false or bogus check."

2. Same — Statute as to Prima Facie Evidence of Intent to Defraud Held Valid. The provisions of chapter 33, Session Laws of Oklahoma 1923, providing that "the making, drawing, uttering or delivering of a check, draft or order, payment of which is refused by the drawee, shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud and the knowledge of insufficient funds in, or credit with, such bank or other depository," sufficient to pay "such check, draft or order," are valid provisions.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Luther James, Judge.

A.C. Gunther was convicted of the crime of procuring money by passing a false or bogus check, and he appeals. Affirmed.

L.D. Mitchell, Lee G. Gill and C.C. Andrews, for plaintiff in error.

Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CHAPPELL, J. The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the district court of Tulsa county of the crime of procuring money by passing a false or bogus check, and was sentenced to serve a term of five years in the state penitentiary and pay a fine of $200.

The facts in this case are substantially the same

Page 321

as the facts in case No. A-6523, 42 Okla. Cr. 129, 275 P. 237, decided by this court, except in this case the defendant obtained $450 from the Ketchum Hotel Company by means of a bogus check passed on the 18th day of May, 1926, and the information was filed on the 15th day of June, 1926.

The evidence to support the charge and the errors of law complained of by the defendant are practically the same in this case as in No. A-6523.

This court having decided the questions raised in A-6523 adverse to the defendant, and the evidence in this case being ample to support the verdict of the jury, it follows as a matter of course that this cause is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P.J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.