"Creating a false impression as to a future event . . . is not sufficient." Mathis v. State, 161 Ga. App. 251,251, 288 S.E.2d 317 (1982). "The element of a false representation must bear on an existing fact or past event and not future performance."

Creating a false impression as to a future event[,] . . . by a promise of future payment, is not sufficient." Mathis v. State, 161 Ga. App. 251 ( 288 SE2d 317) (1982) (conviction reversed where defendant persuaded grocer to allow her to take groceries worth $47.86 based on her promise to pay for them the following Friday, a promise she failed to keep). "The element of a false representation must bear on an existing fact or past event and not future performance.

Creating a false impression as to a future event, particularly, in this case, by a promise of future payment, is not sufficient." Mathis v. State, 161 Ga. App. 251 ( 288 S.E.2d 317) (1982) (conviction reversed where defendant persuaded grocer to let her have groceries worth $47.86 upon her promise to pay for them the following Friday, a promise she failed to keep). In Harrell v. State, 192 Ga. App. 876, 877 (2) ( 386 S.E.2d 676) (1989), this court determined that evidence showing the defendant had purchased a new car by writing a check on a non-existent bank account was sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft by deception.

"The gravamen of [OCGA § 16-8-3 (a)] lies in obtaining the property of another by intentionally creating a false impression as to an existing fact or past event." Mathis v. State, 161 Ga. App. 251 ( 288 S.E.2d 317) (1982). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, testimony was adduced that appellant, after marrying Louise Flournoy (hereinafter "Flournoy"), obtained at least $55, 459 from her over the course of several months by representing to her that he would get her a "double return" on the money by investing it in several companies he allegedly owned.

There was evidence in the instant case authorizing a finding that appellants were consignees of gasoline belonging to the victim and that, as such, they were in lawful possession of property belonging to the victim. Compare Elliott v. State, 149 Ga. App. 579, 580 (1) ( 254 S.E.2d 900) (1979); Mathis v. State, 161 Ga. App. 251 ( 288 S.E.2d 317) (1982). A consignee "is both a bailee and the sales agent of the bailor.

Croy v. State, 133 Ga. App. 244 (1) ( 211 S.E.2d 183) (1974). See also Mathis v. State, 161 Ga. App. 251 ( 288 S.E.2d 317) (1982); Elliott v. State, 149 Ga. App. 579, 581 ( 254 S.E.2d 900) (1979). Compare Ray v. State, 165 Ga. App. 89 (2) ( 299 S.E.2d 584) (1983); Harris v. State, 141 Ga. App. 213 ( 233 S.E.2d 21) (1977).