The act was a wrongful one, very likely a technical conversion, certainly a departure from instructions, but in the common speech of men there would be reluctance to describe it as flagitious or dishonest. The definition of "dishonest" as stated in Home Indemnity Company, supra, was followed by a later Illinois case in Daniel Grocer Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 133 Ill.App.2d 488, 266 N.E.2d 365 (1971). In Irvin Jacobs Co. v. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland, 202 F.2d 794 (7th Cir. 1953), cited with approval by the Illinois court in Home Indemnity Company, supra, the court had this comment:

This type of exclusion has been a part of many fidelity policies for over four decades. See Daniel Grocer Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 133 Ill. App.2d 488, 490, 266 N.E.2d 365 (1971) (where fidelity bond executed in 1958 contained similar exclusion); York Lumber Co. v. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland, 331 F. Supp. 1131, 1132 (E.D. Penn. 1971) (where court noted that profit and loss computation exclusion was first adopted in 1957). The exclusion was designed to curb abuses by employers insured against employee dishonesty where covered losses were claimed on the basis of mere estimates, but where the losses might actually be the result of bookkeeping errors, waste, or negligence.

Finally, we are referred to one case which presents a fairly close analogy to this case. In Daniel Grocer Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 133 Ill. App.2d 488, 266 N.E.2d 365 (1971), plaintiff sued under a blanket bond claiming losses as a result of dishonest and fraudulent acts of the manager of one of his branch stores. The manager's duties included depositing store receipts in a local bank and making written weekly reports to his employer.