Woollacott

Count I of the indictment charged that the defendant embezzled $9,844.88, in money, personal property of S. N. Bonsall.

In count Y of the indictment the defendant was charged with having embezzled $3,850, in money, belonging to one S. C. McClung.

The first point made on behalf of appellant is that the court erred in not giving defendant’s instruction. number two. The refusal,to give this instruction was not error. The request was that the court instruct the jury that mere neglect to pay over money, or to hand over security or property, is not sufficient evidence in itself of fraudulent conversion thereof to one’s own use, “for there may be losses and failure to pay where a failure is due to misfortune or from other causes not criminal.” There was no evidence on which this instruction could have been predi cated and hence the instruction would have- been misleading. The requested instruction is also objectionable in that it requests the court to give the reasons on which the requested instruction is based. The instructions to a jury should not be argumentative. The trial judge is responsible for the instructions, and it is not for the jury to review them—hence the judge’s reasons…