by guilty of compounding a felony.72 But an accounting and payment or offer of payment may be shown as negativing the existence of a fraudulent intent,78 or as tending to disprove an appropriation or conversion.74 And under some statutes it may be considered in mitigation of the punishment, if made before the commencement of the prosecution.75 VII. THE INTENT § 547. In general. As a rule, a felonious or criminal intent is an essential element of the offense, and a fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of his property must be shown.76 But where the statute 72 State v. Chaplain, 101 Kan. 413, 166 Pac. 238; Pope v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 261, 158 S. W. 527. 73 Where the prosecution is based on the failure of defendant to pay over money collected by him as agent, he may show a tender after the prosecution was begun. State v. Eastman, 62 Kan. 353, 63 Pac. 597. On the prosecution of a guardian for embezzling his ward's money, where it is shown that he deposited money of the ward to his individual credit and withdrew the same for his own use, he may show subsequent payments made by him to his ward, and that he subsequently filed an account which was approved by the probate court. Ambrose V. United States, 45 App. Cas. (D. C.) 112. 74 See § 540, supra. 75 People v. McLean, 135 Cal. 306, 67 Pac. 770; Fulkerson v. State, Okla. Cr. 189 Pac. 1092. See also § 550, infra. 76 United States. Agnew v. United States, 165 U. S. 36, 41 L. Ed. 624, 17 Sup. Ct. 235; Lindgren v. United States, 260 Fed. 772; McKnight v. United States, 111 Fed. 735; s. c., 115 Fed. 972; United States v. Youtsey, 91 Fed. 864; United States v. Harper, 33 Fed. 471. Alabama. Ex parte Cowart, 201 Ala. 525, 78 So. 879; Walker v. State, 117 Ala. 42, 23 So. 149; Reeves v. State, 95 Ala. 31, 11 So. 158. Arkansas. Kent v. State, 143 Ark. 439, 220 S. W. 814; Fleener v. State, 58 Ark. 98, 23 S. W. 1. California. Cal. 706, 186 Murphy v. Davids, 181 Colorado. Moody v. People, 65 Colo. 339, 176 Pac. 476; Tashima v. People, 58 Colo. 98, 144 Pac. 200. Connecticut. State v. Lanyon, 83 Conn. 449, 76 Atl. 1095. Delaware. State v. Brewington, 2 Boyce (25 Del.) 71, 78 Atl. 402; State v. Seeney, 5 Pennew. (21 Del.) 142, 59 Atl. 48; State v. Collins, 1 Marv. 536, 41 Atl. 144. Ambrose v. District of Columbia. United States, 45 App. Cas. 112; Fulton v. United States, 45 App. Cas. 27; Masters v. United States, 42 App. Cas. 350. Florida. Rast v. State, 79 Fla. 772, 84 So. 683; Eatman v. State, 48 Fla. 21, 37 So. 576. Georgia. Mangham v. State, 11 Ga. App. 427, 75 S. E. 512; Orr v. State, 6 Ga. App. 628, 65 S. E. 582. Idaho. State v. Jones, 25 Idaho 587, 138 Pac. 1116. Illinois. People v. Ehle, 273 Ill. 424, 112 N. E. 970; Spalding v. People, 172 Ill. 40; Mulford v. People, merely declares that the doing of certain acts shall constitute embezzlement, without in terms or by implication requiring a fraudulent 139 Ill. 586, 28 N. E. 1096; Ehrhart v. Rork, 114 Ill. App. 509. Indiana. State v. Ensley, 177 Ind. 483, 97 N. E. 113, Ann. Cas. 1914 D 1306; Agar v. State, 176 Ind. 234, 94 N. E. 819; Stropes v. State, 120. Ind. 562, 22 N. E. 773. Iowa. State v. Rowell, 172 Iowa 208, 154 N. W. 488; White v. International Textbook Co., 144 Iowa 92, 121 N. W. 1104; State v. Carmean, 126 Iowa 291, 102 N. W. 97, 106 Am. St. Rep. 352. Kansas. 557, 57 Pac. 109. State v. Eastman, 60 Kan. Kentucky. Morrow v. Com., 157 Ky. 486, 163 S. W. 452; Morse v. Com., 129 Ky. 294, 111 S. W. 714; Com. v. Barney, 115 Ky. 475, 74 S. W. 181; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Miller, 114 Ky. 754, 71 S. W. 921. Louisiana. Union Nat. Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 143 La. 329, 78 So. 582; State v. Smith, 47 La. Ann. 432, 16 So. 938. Maryland. Baugh v. Moore, 122 Md. 149, 89 Atl. 404, 939; Moneyweight Scale Co. v. McCormick, 109 Md. 170, 72 Atl. 537; Williams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 105 Md. 490, 66 Atl. 495. Massachusetts. Com. V. Tuckerman, 10 Gray 173. Michigan. People v. Wolff, 157 Mich. 242, 121 N. W. 754; People v. Wadsworth, 63 Mich. 500, 30 N. W. 99; People v. Hurst, 62 Mich. 276, 28 N. W. 838; People v. Galland, 55 Mich. 628. Minnesota. State v. Barnes, 108 Minn. 227, 122 N. W. 4; State v. Kortgaard, 62 Minn. 7, 64 N. W. 51. Missouri. State v. Stevens, 281 Mo. 639, 220 S. W. 844; State v. Britt, 278 Mo. 510, 213 S. W. 425; State v. Pate, 268 Mo. 431, 188 S. W. 139; State v. Lentz, 184 Mo. 223, 83 S. W. 970; Mansur v. Lentz, 201 Mo. App. 256, 211 S. W. 97. Nebraska. Higbee v. State, 74 Neb. 331, 104 N. W. 748. New Jersey. State v. Deutsch, 77 N. J. L. 292, 72 Atl. 5; State v. Reynolds, 65 N. J. L. 424, 47 Atl. 644; Burnett v. State, 62 N. J. L. 510, 41 Atl. 719. New York. People v. Meadows, 199 N. Y. 1, 92 N. E. 128, aff'g 136 App. Div. 226, 121 N. Y. Supp. 17; Marcus v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 164 App. Div. 859, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1020; People v. Shears, 158 App. Div. 577, 143 N. Y. Supp. 861, aff'd 209 N. Y. 610, 103 N. E. 1129. North Carolina. State v. Summers, 141 N. C. 841, 53 S. E. 856; State v. McDonald, 133 N. C. 680, 45 S. E. 582. Ohio. State v. Keith, 91 Ohio St. 132, 110 N. E. 188; State v. Davis, 85 Ohio St. 43, 96 N. E. 1022. Oregon. State v. Littschke, 27 Ore. 189, 40 Pac. 167. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Wilson, 266 Pa. 236, 109 Atl. 913, rev'g 72 Pa. Super. Ct. 467; Pittsburgh, A. & M. P. R. Co. v. McCurdy, 114 Pa. St. 554, 8 Atl. 230, 60 Am. Rep. 363. South Dakota. State v. Millard, 30 S. D. 169, 138 N. W. 366. Tennessee. State v. Leonard, 6 Cold. 307. Texas. Busby v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 289, 103 S. W. 638; Taylor v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 377, 97 S. W. 473. Virginia. Wadley v. Com., 98 Va. 803, 35 S. E. 452. Washington. State v. Ward, 96 Wash. 550, 165 Pac. 794; State v. Leonard, 56 Wash. 83, 105 Pac. 163, 21 Ann. Cas. 69. intent, no other intent than an intent to do the prohibited acts is necessary." The felonious intent must exist at the time of the conversion." But it need not have existed at the time of acquiring possession of the property.79 And, generally, if it does exist when possession is acquired, the offense is larceny and not embezzlement,80 although some courts hold that its existence at that time will not prevent a conviction for embezzlement.81 For the purpose of showing an absence of criminal intent, the accused may show that he acted under advice of counsel.82 § 548. Mistake, negligence, or claim of right. Ordinarily, it is not embezzlement where money or property is wrongfully applied or otherwise converted by mistake,88 or as the result of negligence West Virginia. State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. Wisconsin. Milbrath v. State, 138 Wis. 354, 120 N. W. 252, 131 Am. St. Rep. 1012. England. Reg. v. Creed, 1 Car. & K. 63; Reg. v. Norman, Car. & M. 501; Reg. v. Balls, L. R. 1 C. C. 328. "Embezzle" implies a fraudulent intent. Grin v. Shine, 187 U. S. 181, 47 L. Ed. 130, 23 Sup. Ct. 98; United States v. Davenport, 266 Fed. 425; Kent v. State, 143 Ark. 439, 220 S. W. 814; State v. Pate, 268 Mo. 431, 188 S. W. 139. The term "embezzle" is not synonymous with "convert" but is synonymous with "fraudulently convert."' State v. Pate, 268 Mo. 431, 188 S. W. 139. The term "convert" or "unlawfully convert" does not imply a criminal intent. There may be an unlawful conversion which is not a crime. State v. Pate, 268 Mo. 431, 188 S. W. 139; State v. Ward, 96 Wash. 550, 165 Pac. 794. Defendant is not liable for a misappropriation by his agent without his knowledge or consent. Burnett v. State, 62 N. J. L. 510, 41 Atl. 719. There must be an intent to convert the identical money actually converted. A general criminal intent to convert all moneys coming into one's possession as agent is not sufficient. State v. Gross, alias Kimble, 91 Ohio St. 161, 110 N. E. 466. It is not embezzlement for the secretary of a corporation to refuse to surrender its books until they can be revised in his presence and he relieved of further responsibility, where he agrees to deliver them if this is done, and there is nothing to show that he did not act in good faith. State v. Hellwig, 60 Mo. App. 483. 77 See § 551, infra. 78 People v. Meadows, 199 N. Y. 1, 92 N. E. 128, aff'g 136 App. Div. 226, 121 N. Y. Supp. 17; Taylor v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 377, 97 S. W. 473. 79 State v. Findley, 101 Mo. 217, 14 S. W. 185. 80 See § 512, supra, and § 788, infra. 81 See § 512, supra. 82 Lindgren v. United States, 260 Fed. 772. And see generally, § 179, supra. 83 State v. Smith, 47 La. Ann. 432, 16 So. 938; Van Etten v. State, 24 or carelessness,84 and without intent to defraud. Nor is it embezzlement for a person to whom money or property has been intrusted to appropriate, or retain, or use it under a bona fide claim. of title or right, however unfounded the claim may be,85 or to retain Neb. 734, 40 N. W. 289; Pittsburgh, A. & M. Passenger R. Co. v. McCurdy, 114 Pa. St. 554, 8 Atl. 230, 60 Am. Rep. 363; Busby v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 289, 103 S. W. 638. As where a public officer unintentionally or accidentally mixes public funds with his private account. Mansur v. Lentz, 201 Mo. App. 256, 211 S. W. 97. Or where a state auditor by mistake draws a warrant in payment of a valid claim against the state upon wrong fund. In re Huston, 27 Idaho 231, 147 Pac. 1064. a And directors of a corporation cannot be guilty of embezzlement in declaring and paying to themselves an unlawful dividend, where they act in utter ignorance of their legal rights in the matter, but without any fraudulent motive. Taylor v. Com., 119 Ky. 731, 75 S. W. 244. 84 Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234, 76 So. 785; Rucker v. State, 12 Ga. App. 632, 77 S. E. 1129; Pittsburgh, A. & M. Passenger R. Co. v. McCurdy, 114 Pa. St. 554, 8 Atl. 230, 60 Am. Rep. 363; State v. Leonard, 56 Wash. 83, 105 Pac. 163, 21 Ann. Cas. 69. The contrary has been held under a statute making certain acts embezzlement without requiring an intent to defraud. State v. Czizek, 38 Minn. 192, 36 N. W. 457. And see § 551, infra. And a reckless negligence in handling trust funds so glaring as to be inconsistent with an honest purpose, may be evidence of an intention to defraud. Com. v. Kaufman, 9 Pa. Super. Ct. 310. 85 Connecticut. State v. Lanyon, 83 Com. 449, 76 Atl. 1095. Florida. Eatman v. State, 48 Fla. 21, 37 So. 576. Illinois. Ross v. Innis, 35 Ill. 487, 85 Am. Dec. 373. Indiana. Beaty v. State, 82 Ind. 228. Kentucky. Ky. 210, 137 Com., 119 Ky. Dunavant v. Com., 144 S. W. 1051; Taylor v. 731, 75 S. W. 244. New York. J. W. Matthews Co. v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 127 App. Div. 195, 111 N. Y. Supp. 76, aff'd 195 N. Y. 593, 89 N. E. 1102. Utah. State v. Coyle, 41 Utah 320, 126 Pac. 305. Virginia. Wadley v. Com., 98 Va. 803, 35 S. E. 452. Washington. State v. Russell, 84 Wash. 607, 147 Pac. 194. Wyoming. McCann V. United States, 2 Wyo. 274. England. Reg. v. Creed, 1 Car. & K. 63; Reg. v. Norman, Car. & M. 501. As where a person appropriates money or property under the bona fide belief that the owner had consented or assented to his using it. Fulton v. United States, 45 App. Cas. (D. C.) 27; State v. Smith, 47 La. Ann. 432, 16 So. 930. possession of the property because a third person claims title to it.86 § 549. Intent to pay or secure debt. Generally it is not embezzlement for a person to retain and refuse to pay over money intrusted to him in the bona fide belief that he has a legal right to hold it as security for, or to apply it in payment of a debt due him from the owner.8 87 149; Moneyweight Scale Co. v. McCormick, 109 Md. 170, 72 Atl. 537; People v. Hopkins, 126 N. Y. App. Div. 843, 111 N. Y. Supp. 423. Or where an agent authorized to sell property for a specified price sells it for more and keeps the difference, under a claim in good faith that he has a right to do so. People v. Lapique, 120 Cal. 25, 52 Pac. 40. Or where a salesman retains money received by him as the share of the profits to which he was entitled under his contract. People v. Hopkins, 126 N. Y. App. Div. 843, 111 N. Y. Supp. 423. Or where there is a dispute between an employer and his employee as to their contract rights, and the employer retains money deposited with him by the employee as security, claiming a right to do so under the contract. Mulford v. People, 139 Ill. 586, 28 N. E. 1096. In order to sustain a conviction of a director of a corporation for embezzlement committed by declaring and accepting an illegal dividend, it must appear that at least a majority of the directors voting in the affirmative, including the defendant, if he voted or participated in the act, acted in declaring and paying it, and the defendant in receiving it, with knowledge that their act in so doing was illegal and with the fraudulent intent of converting the money. Taylor v. Com., 119 Ky. 731, 75 S. W. 244. An agent may retain money which he claims is due him under his contract, but this does not justify him in withholding a balance over and above the amount of his claim. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Gibson, (Ky.) 101 S. W. 895. A guardian who used guardianship funds to take up his personal indebtedness was held not to be guilty of embezzlement though there was a technical appropriation to his own use, where he had given ample security to account for all funds coming into his hands, was personally able to raise the amount thereof on demand, and did fully account for all such funds, and where he honestly believed that he was acting legally and for the best interests of his wards. Smith v. Smith, 45 Mont. 535, 125 Pac. 987. The claim must be made in good faith. If made in bad faith, it is no defense. J. W. Matthews Co. v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 127 N. Y. App. Div. 195, 111 N. Y. Supp. 76, aff'd 195 N. Y. 593, 89 N. E. 1102. 86 State v. Littschke, 27 Ore. 189, 40 Pac. 167. 87 Lindgren v. United States, 260 Fed. 772; State v. Collins, 1 Marv. (Del.) 536, 41 Atl. 144; Eatman v. State, 48 Fla. 21, 37 So. 571; Mangham v. State, 11 Ga. App. 427, 75 S. E. 512. This is true where an agent retains money with the honest purpose of |