
    17255.
    DINKINS v. THE STATE.
    l’he conviction was authorized by the evidence, and a new trial was properly refused.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 1180, n. 74.
    Decided May 12, 1926.
    Rehearing denied June 15, 1926.
    See preceding case for description and counsePs names.
   Luke, J.

Dinkins was convicted of the offense of cheating and

swindling, upon two separate indictments, and both cases are here upon the sole assignment of error that his conviction was unauthorized by the evidence. The conviction in this ease was amply authorized by the evidence; no error of law appears; and the court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.  