Some of the numerous statutes relating to embezzlement are very general, in that they define the offense without stating what class or classes of persons come within their terms in a fiduciary capacity, while others are specific in that respect, some stating one class and some another class. The different capacities in which one may stand in some fiduciary relation with another, has given rise to the many statutes of the several states. For instance, there is a statute providing that "whoever shall embezzle or convert to his own use, or secretes, with intent to embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use, money, goods or property delivered to him, which may be the subject of larceny shall be deemed guilty of larceny." 83 It will be observed that this statute does not state in what particular capacity the person to whom the money or property is delivered may be acting for the owner.

80 People vs. Johnson, 91 Cal., 265; State vs. Baldwin, 70 Iowa, 180; State vs. Wingo, 89 Ind., 206; Johnson vs. People, 113 Ill., 99; Smith vs. People, 53 N. Y., 111.

81 State vs. Fulton, 13 Ark., 170; Com. vs..Dougherty, 127 Mass., 20; State vs. Harmon, 106 Mo., 635; U. S. vs. Lee, 12 Fed., 816. 82 Com. vs. Berry, 99 Mass., 428; Johnson vs. People, 113 Ill., 99; Kibs vs. People, 81 Ill., 599; People vs. Salorse, 62 Cal., 139; State vs. Harmon, 106 Mo., 635; People vs. Cruger, 102 N. Y., 510.

Another statute of the same state makes it embezzlement for any officer, agent, clerk or servant of any incorporated company, or for any clerk, agent, servant or apprentice of any person, or co-partnership, or society to fraudulently convert to his own use any property of his employer without the consent of his company or employer. And there are other statutes relating to different classes of persons, such as attorneys at law, public officers, administrators and executors and the like. Thus it is seen that the statutes relating to this offense do not apply to all persons without regard to their position or relation to the owner of the property, but are aimed at the particular classes of persons enumerated in the statutes, such as agents, clerks, servants, bailees, public officers and others mentioned in the different statutes.

Therefore, in order to sustain a conviction for embezzlement, it becomes necessary to show that the accused person is within some one of the classes of persons designated in the statute.84 And it may be stated, as a general rule, that in view of the statutes, the offense of embezzlement can be committed only by those designated in the statutes.85 But by statute any person who aids, abets, or advises in the commission of this offense may be convicted, whether he comes within any of the classes or not.86

83 111. Stat., Chap. 38, Sec. 74.

84 Reg vs. Turner, 11 Cox C. C, 551;

Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 511. 85 10 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 997

(2nd Ed.). 86 Mills vs. State, 53 Neb., 263; Brown vs. State, 18 Ohio St., 497.