concurring. I concur in result only because I think we are controlled by State v. Croland, 54 N. J. Super. 594 (App. Div. 1959), aff’d. 31 N. J. 380 (1960), the rationale of which I believe to be erroneous. See State v. Harris, 147 Conn. 589, 164 A. 2d 399 (Sup. Ct. 1960); People v. Schmidt, 147 Cal. App. 2d 222, 305 P. 2d 215 (D. Ct. App. 1956); State v. Stiles, 5 Utah 2d 101, 297 P. 2d 227 (Sup. Ct. 1956); 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Embezzlement § 11 at 561.