Syllabus by the Court.
1. To sustain a conviction of larceny, there must be proof of the value of the property, by competent evidence.
2. Evidence herein held insufficient to support the verdict.
Error to district court, Douglas county; Baker, Judge.
HARRISON, J.
The plaintiff in error was tried in the district court of Douglas county on the charge of grand larceny, was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary, and error proceedings in his behalf have been prosecuted to this court. The only assignment of error which we deem it necessary to examine and determine is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. This complaint is based on the proposition that there was no competent evidence to support the finding of the jury of the value of the property, the following named articles: One silver watch, one lady's neck chain, one pair of opera glasses, one pearl ring, and one shirt stud,--with the stealing of which the plaintiff in error was charged. The evidence on this subject was as follows: Mrs. Downey was interrogated and answered: “Q. Do you know the reasonable value of this chain, Exhibit 1? A. $36 is the value of it. Q. Do you know the value of this ring, Exhibit 2? A. That is $20. Q. Do you know the value of the opera glasses, Exhibit 3? A. $5. Q. Do you know the value of the watch? A. $8. Q. Do you know the value of the shirt stud? A. $3.” Her evidence on cross-examination on this branch of the case was: “Q. How long have you owned this ring, Exhibit 2? A. Well, about twenty years. It is one that I never wear, because I am afraid of losing the stones, and I have never had it out of the box only on special occasions. Q. What means have you of knowing the valuation of it? A. Because that is what it cost. Q. You mean twenty years ago that cost how much? A. $25 was paid for it. Q. You do not know what it is worth now? A. Well, I have not asked any jeweler; of course not. Q. Then you cannot say what it is worth to-day? A. I think it is worth that. Pearls are just about the same value. Q. Do you know what it is all worth to-day in the market, to be sold? A. No, sir; I do not. Q. How long have you owned this chain? A. About 10 years. Q. Did you purchase it ten years ago? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you pay for it then? A. $36. It is like the ring; we have not worn it much. Q. What means have you of knowing its actual value? A. I was offered the same price for it. Q. What do you know--A. I do not know. I have not had occasion to take it to anybody to sell it to know. Q. And the opera glasses; how long have you owned these? A. About two years. Q. Do you know the price of opera glasses in Omaha? A. No, sir; I have not been inquiring the price of them. Q. Then you do not really know the value of this property,--what it would be worth to sell to-day in the market? A. No, sir; I have had no occasion to inquire.” Mr. C. S. Raymond, who was called for a witness for the defense, stated that he was a jeweler, had been in the business 25 years, and further as follows: “Q. You are acquainted with such articles--gold chains--as that,--of the value of them? A. I do not know. Q. Please examine Exhibit No. 1. What is the fair value of that? A. I could not tell. Q. To the best of your judgment? A. I could not tell. I do not know. Q. Well, you are a jeweler. You must have some knowledge. (Objected to as cross-examination.) Q. Examine that ring, Mr. Raymond. What do you think the fair value of that ring is? Do you know what the value of that is? A. No; I could not tell you. You ought to send down and get a pawnbroker, or a second-hand man. They deal in those things, and I do not. All that would be worth to me would be old gold. Q. That is what I am trying to prove. The Court: If he does not know the fair market value, he does not know-- Mr. Eighmy: Q. Are you acquainted with the value of opera glasses? A. If you had a new pair, just imported, I could tell you exactly. Q. Examine these, and state, if you can, what you think a fair market value on them? A. They are a class of glass-- I do not know anything about them at all.” Mr. A. Mandelberg, a witness on the part of plaintiff in error, testified that he was a jeweler and engaged in the jewelry business, and further as follows: “Q. Are you...
