Wood

defendant asked the court to give the following, among other, instructions, which was refused:

It was an important question -in the trial of this case whether Radcliff intended to part with the title to the particular money delivered to Wood, by permitting the latter to use it in his business, thus constituting a loan, or whether Radcliff intended that the identical pieces of coin should be retained by Wood as security for faithful service. The defendant testified that it was understood by both parties that the money was to be used in the business. If that was true, the subsequent refusal to pay did not make the original obtaining the money larceny. The testimony of Radcliff was the reverse of that of Wood. The defendant was entitled to the instruction.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.