Pearson

The defendant was convicted upon several counts of embezzlement under section 424 of the Penal Code and he appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

One of his contentions is that there was no evidence to support the allegation in the indictment that the defendant was a “duly and regularly appointed, qualified and acting person charged with the receipt, safe-keeping and transfer of public monies” as contemplated by said section. He contends that there is no evidence that he was actually employed. In support of this contention he refers us to the cross-examina tion of Mr. Edwin T. Keiser, who was sales tax administrator in charge of collecting the sales tax under the State Board of Equalization, and under whose supervision the defendant actually worked. “Q. Before he came to work in your office, was that? A. Yes, sir. . . . Q. Did you hire him then? A. No, sir. Q. Did you hire him at any later date? A. No, sir. Q. You never did? A. No, sir.” The futility of the defendant’s contention that he was never employed is apparent when we go to the direct examination of the same witness. He there testifies that the defendant was an employee under his…