The court did not err in overruling and dismissing the certiorari.

He did this and accounted for all the deliveries and turned in the cash for the day, except the money for the bed frame. After he had finished his checking with the delivery department supervisor he went to the warehouse. The detective department there confronted him. It was about an hour before closing time. When he was confronted there was one detective from Rich's Inc. and one from the City of Atlanta. They began questioning him about the cash for the particular article in question. He denied that he had the article for delivery and denied that he had collected for it. He was directed to turn his pockets out, and he did, reversal side and back pockets. He was told to search himself more closely and to produce the money because those questioning him knew that he did collect the money from Mrs. Binkley and that he still had the money. Thereupon the defendant reached in his coat pocket behind his handkerchief and brought forth the eight one dollar, marked bills which Mrs. Binkley paid him. These bills were wrapped in the pink invoice slip. The defendant was then arrested by the city authorities. There was also found on the defendant's person a check made payable to Rich's Inc. for $69.95 which was given to the defendant she day before. This cheek was signed "Slaton School" for miscellaneous articles. It was drawn on the Citizens & Southern Bank and dated May 2, 1950. The evidence shows that the transaction concerning the bed frame was on May 3, 1950, the day following delivery to the school. When questioned about this check, the defendant stated that lie had not gotten around to handling it. Then it was that the defendant made a free and voluntary statement that when he received the bed frame for delivery on the morning of May 3, 1950 that he intended to keep the money there for for himself. He was tried in the Criminal Court of Fulton County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. His application for certiorari was made to the Superior Court of Fulton County, which was granted. On hearing the certiorari the judge of the superior court overruled and dismissed the same. It is on this judgment that the defendant assigns error here.

There are three elements which constitute the crime for which the accused was convicted: (1) Entrustment; (2) the use for which made; (3) the fraudulent conversion by the bailee. At the trial, before the jury, counsel for the defendant admitted the entrustment and the purpose, and submitted only one question to the jury: Whether or not there was a fraudulent conversion. That is the only question here to determine. Is the evidence which we have related substantially sufficient to sustain the verdict? It is contended by counsel for the defendant that since the defendant was on the premises and had about an hour of work time left in which he could have delivered the money to the supervisor of the delivery department, and since he had the money on his person wrapped in the pink invoice slip, this evidence is insufficient to show a conversion. We disagree with this view. What is conversion? Black's Law Dictionary (2d ed.) defines conversion at law to be: "An unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another, to the alteration of their condition or the exclusion of the owner's rights." This court in James v. Newnan, 73 Ga. App. 79 (3) (35 S. E. 2d, 581), had this to say: " 'Any distinct act of dominion wrongfully asserted over another's property in denial of his right, or inconsistent with it, is a conversion. It is unnecessary to shoW that the defendant applied it to his own use, if he exercised dominion over it in defiance of the owner's right, or in a manner inconsistent with it. It is in law a conversion whether it be for his own or any other's use.' Merchants & Miners Transportation Company v. Moore, 124 Ga. 482 (52 S. E. 802)."

It might, to some, appear queer, as counsel for the defendant argues, why the detectives handled the transaction concerning the bed frame as this record shows they did. The jury were authorized to find, from the testimony of the detectives of Rich's Inc. that the detective department was alerted by the transactions with the school the day before the $7.95 transaction, and for which school account the defendant received a check for $69.95, which he did not turn in to Rich's Inc., and which was found on his person after he was arrested. Yet he had two days in which to turn in this check. The record does not reveal, and of course we do not know, how many customers were furnished with marked currency with which to pay for merchandise delivered on the day the bed frame was delivered. Of course, if he had turned in the marked bills which he received in payment for the bed frame, there would have been no case against him for this item.

The court did not err in overruling and dismissing the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed. MacIntyre, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.