¶1I dissent.
¶2The information herein is good. It charges but a single offense. The charge is that on a day certain at Cascade County, Montana, the defendant obtained from Elsie Dibbler her diamond ring of a value in excess of fifty dollars “by means of artifice or pretense commonly called confidence game.” In other words defendant was accused of swindling the prosecutrix out of her valuable ring by means of artifice and pretense constituting a confidence game.
¶3The legislative assembly of this state, by valid enactment, made it a crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison to so obtain property from another by means of a “confidence game.” R. C. M. 1947, sec. 94-1806.
¶4A jury heard the evidence in the case and found the defendant guilty of the one crime charged in the information. A judgment of conviction was entered on the jury’s verdict and, in my opinion, the evidence amply sustains same.
¶5As was said in People v. Westrup, 372 Ill. 517, 25 N. E. (2d) 16, 18: “ The fact that the transaction was made to assume the form of a business deal is not material, if in fact, it was a swindling operation [citing cases], which the evidence clearly shows that it was. ’ ’ Also see Rucker v. State, 88 Okl. Cr. 15, 195 Pac. (2d) 299, 311, 199 Pac. (2d) 221.
¶6In McBride v. People, 126 Colo. 277, 248 Pac. (2d) 725, 728, the court said: “The essence of the offense is the plan and purpose of the perpetrator to swindle another of his money or property. To swindle is to trick and cheat another of his pos*318sessions by falsehood, cunning or conniving scheme. ‘ “Confidence game is any swindling operation in which advantage is taken of a confidence reposed by the victim in the swindler.” ’ Lace v. People, 43 Colo. 199, 204, 95 Pac. 302, 304. Any plan or scheme of trickery wherein any false token or thing is made use of to accomplish the intended result constitutes a ‘confidence game.’ No single definition can cover the range of possibilities of this offense, for they are as ‘ “various as the mind of man is suggestive.” ’ Kelly v. People, 121 Colo. 243, 251, 252, 215 Pac. (2d) 336, 340, citing with approval in this connection, Powers v. People, 53 Colo. 43, 123 Pac. 642; Elliott v. People, 56 Colo. 236, 138 Pac. 39; Peiffer v. People, 106 Colo. 533, 107 Pac. (2d) 799. Each instance depends upon its own peculiar facts and circumstances. The gravamen of the offense is not so much by what means was the victim filched, but the intent of the perpetrator in effecting his unrighteous objective.”
¶7In People v. Priola, 395 Ill. 296, 70 N. E. (2d) 46, 48, it is said: “The first contention is that the offense shown to have been committed was not a confidence game, but only larceny. We have held many times that the gist of obtaining money by the use and means of the confidence game is the confidence which one person inspires in another, with the result of obtaining money. It covers any swindling scheme whereby the swindler wins the confidence of his victim, and by reason thereof takes his money from him. People v. Marmon, 389 Ill. 19, 58 N. E. (2d) 603. It may be another crime was committed, but that does not prevent prosecution of defendants for obtaining money by the confidence game, as the same act may constitute two or more offenses. Nagel v. People, 229 Ill. 598, 82 N. E. 315; People v. Singer, 288 Ill. 113, 123 N. E. 327. The offense was complete when they received the money from Mrs. Koll through her confidence in them.” Compare: State v. Kavanaugh, 203 La. 1, 13 So. (2d) 366, 371; People v. Mutchler, 309 Ill. 207, 140 N. E. 820, 35 A. L. R. 339; People v. Rosenbaum, 312 Ill. 330, 143 N. E. 859.
¶8*319The judgment of conviction entered on the jury’s verdict should be affirmed.