Pruett

(after stating the facts as above). The Act of May 29, 1920, referred to in the indictment ( 41 Stat. 630 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10267a]), provides:

The plaintiff in error earnestly insists that the indictment is defective, because it appears on the face thereof that the plaintiff in error was not a trustee in bankruptcy at the time the demand for payment was made, and, further, that if the indictment in fact charges a crime under the Act of May 29, 1920, it nevertheless appears from the testimony that the funds were converted prior to its passage. Whether the indictment is good under the Act of May 29, 1920, we need not inquire, because ‘it is clearly sufficient under section 29 of the Bankruptcy Act ( 30 Stat. 554 [Comp. St. § 9613]). The latter section provides:

The plaintiff in error does not question the sufficiency of the facts charged to bring the case within the purview of the latter section, but he contends that, inasmuch as the indictment on its face is based upon a particular statute, it must stand or fall by that statute, and cannot be sustained under any other. With this contention we are unable to agree. Thus in Vedin v. United States, 257 F. 550 , 168 C. C.…