Seay v. State

*336on appellant’s motion for rehearing

DICE, Judge.

In his motion for rehearing, appellant strenuously insists that the court’s charge was erroneous because it did not instruct the jury, as requested by appellant, that the gist of the offense of embezzlement is the fraudulent intent and that before they could convict appellant they must find that the embezzlement, misapplication or conversion of the money, if any, by appellant was done with such an intent.

The court defined the offense of embezzlement in the terms of Art. 1534, V.A.P.C., and further instructed the jury that to constitute the…