McMahan

—The defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her of embezzlement and from an order denying her a new trial.

The only point urged by appellant is, that the evidence does not show that the crime of embezzlement was committed, for the reasons, — 1. That it fails to show that the property was “ intrusted ” to the defendant; 2. It fails to show that defendant took the money and converted it to her own use.

The facts of the case pertinent to these questions, so far as necessary to state, are as follows: The defendant and the complaining witness were together, in the afternoon, in a room in a house of ill-fame in the city of San Francisco, and the complainant then gave to said defendant seven dollars, as he says, “ for services rendered in that room.” They met again in the evening of that day, and with other parties they spent most of the night, moving about from saloon to saloon, indulging in intoxicating liquors. At about four o’clock in the morning, the complaining witness, with a man who had worked for him in his business as a barber, returned with the defendant to her said room. The prosecuting witness was not drunk, as he says, but was very sick, when they reached the room,…