¶1 Tbe court has read tbe entire evidence in this case, sitting en banc.
¶2 We deem it unnecessary to treat tbe several rulings presented for our consideration, other than tbe refusal to give at appellant’s request tbe general affirmative charge to find in bis favor.
¶3 It was charged, in essential substance, in tbe indictment that be “did falsely pretend to L. M. Prestwood, with intent to defraud, that N. J. Prestwood had told him, tbe said Boots Williams, that be could get twenty-seven dollars, from N. J. Prestwood and Sons, a partnership composed of N. J., L. M., C. T., and G. M. Prestwood, and by means of such false pretense obtained from tbe said L. M. Prestwood twenty-seven dollars.”
¶4 Tbe evidence fails, in our opinion, totally, to sustain tbe quoted allegations contained in the indictment.
¶5 It rather clearly indicates that whatever money was obtained by appellant from N. J. Prestwood & Sons, tbe partnership of which both L. M. and N. J. Prestwood were members, was obtained with tbe tacit, if not express, approval of tbe said N. J. Prestwood, and that tbe prosecution grew out of tbe failure of appellant to repay, or give satisfactory security for, tbe debt.
¶6 For tbe failure to give at appellant’s request tbe general affirmative charge above mentioned, tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause remanded.
¶7 Reversed and remanded.