(defendant's insurance policy that covered theft of cattle; while "theft of cattle" a covered loss under policy, plaintiff argued for non-coverage because cattle were either wrongfully converted or embezzled by defendant's employees who sold them without authorization and pocketed the sale proceeds; ordinary person of usual understanding would not comprehend that all employee "thefts" are "embezzlements"; exclusionary language not clear and policy to be construed in favor of insured; insufficient factual evidence present to determine whether separate deductible should be applied to each separate theft).