¶1OPINION
¶2In this case, the district court correctly determined, contrary to appellant’s contention, that probable cause was established at the preliminary examination to show that embezzlement had been committed by appellant. NRS 205.300; NRS 171.206; State v. Trolson, 21 Nev. 419, 32 P. 930 (1893). See State v. *121Monahan, 50 Nev. 27, 249 P. 566 (1926) and State v. Compton, 450 P.2d 79 (Idaho 1969).
¶3Affirmed.