1. Embezzlement (§ 32*) — Statutes—'Indictment.

Pen. Code Ariz. 1901, § 460, declares that every broker, agent, or person otherwise intrusted with or having in his control property for the use of another, who fraudulently apiiropriates it to his own use not in the due or lawful execution of his trust, is guilty of embezzlement. Held, that an indictment alleging that defendant was intrusted with property for the use of complainant, and that he fraudulently appropriated it to a purpose not in the due execution of his trust, was sufficient without alleging the use or purpose for which the money was intrusted to him.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Embezzlement, Cent. Dig. §§ 47-50; Dec. Dig. ¡S 32.*]

2. Embezzlement (§ 38*) — Property of Accused.

In a prosecution for embezzlement of money claimed to have been delivered to accused to invest for prosecutrix, and which he claimed had been loaned to him, evidence that accused had property and money at the time of the alleged embezzlement was inadmissible.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Embezzlement, Gent. Dig. § 61; Dec. Dig. § 38*1

3. Criminal Law (§ 1059*) — Appeal—Exceptions— Scope.

An exception to the exclusion of evidence is insufficient to preserve an objection to the remarks of the court in ruling on the objection.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2671; Dec. Dig. § 1059.*]

4. Embezzlement (I 44*) — Evidence.

Where, in a prosecution for embezzlement of money alleged to have been delivered to accused to loan out on security, complainant testified that she had confidence iu accused and delivered the money for investment, her testimony was not rendered so incredible as to be insufficient to support a conviction because she did not claim to have given any instructions as to the investment and made no inquiry as to how or for what, length of time or with whom the investment was to be made, etc.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Embezzlement, Cent. Dig. §§ 67-70; Dec. Dig. § 44.*]