
    4652.
    Guyton v. The State.
    Decided April 2, 1913.
    Accusation of larceny after trust; from city court of Dublin—’ Judge Hicks. January 14, 1913.
    The accusation was based on an affidavit of Csesar Plummer, and charged Tom Guyton with “the offense of a misdemeanor, for that the said Tom Guyton, .' . unlawfully, after having been entrusted by affiant with one certain bale of lint cotton weighing about 615 pounds, and of the value of $36.90, fpr the purpose of applying the same for the use and; benefit of affiant by bringing said cotton to Dublin and to be turned over to Sam Weiehselbaum Company on a debt that affiant owed said company, but instead of so applying, the said Tom Guyton . . fraudulently sold said cotton, and converted a part of the proceeds of the same, to wit, the sum of $6.90, to his own use, and thereby injuring and damaging affiant in said amount of $6.90, contrary to the laws of said State,” etc.
    
      Burch & Burch, for plaintiff in error.
    
      George B. Davis, solicitor, contra.
   Hill, C. J.

This being an accusation of larceny after trust, under the Penal Code (1910), § 192 or § 194, in which there was no allegation as to the ownership of the property alleged to have been entrusted to and converted by the 'accused, a demurrer to the indictment because of this omission should have been sustained. Norfleet v. State, 9 Ga App. 853 (72 S. E. 447). Judgment reversed.  