State v. Finch
| Decision Date | 14 December 1886 |
| Parties | STATE v. FINCH. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Clayton county.
The defendant was convicted of the larceny of a seal-skin overcoat of the value of $50, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the period of two years. He appeals to this court.No appearance for appellant.
A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. It was insisted below that there was no legal proof of the value of the overcoat. The only witness who testified to the value of the overcoat was one Arnold. He showed that he had never seen a seal-skin overcoat bought or sold, and did not show he had any knowledge of the value of such an article, except such as any man of ordinary intelligence might be presumed to have. We do not think, however, that we should be justified in wholly discarding his testimony. He might not be a very accurate judge of the value of such an article, but we think that, having seen and examined the coat, he might form some opinion about it. He doubtless could judge with considerable accuracy of the value of such overcoats as are in common use, and he could judge, we think, though perhaps not as accurately, how this compared in value with the best of such coats. We think that his testimony was not inadmissible, and, if not, the verdict was without support.
2. The court instructed “the jury that the value referred to is the market value; that is, what the coat would bring in usual course of trade.” The jury merely found that the coat was worth $50. We are justified in presuming that, under the instruction, they found that as the market value.
3. The court instructed the jury to state the value of the coat or property, as they should find it. It was insisted that they should have been instructed to state the market value. But the jury was expressly told that the value referred to was the market value. We think that the defendant had no good ground for complaint. The instructions upon this point as a whole appear to be quite as favorable to the defendant as he was entitled to. It was claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, but we think otherwise.
We have examined the entire record, and find no error. Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moss v. State
... ... shoes, called the "Aragon." E. T. V. & Ga. Ry. v ... Watson, 90 Ala. 41 (fourth headnote), 7 So. 813; Mitchell ... v. State, 114 Ala. 1 (second headnote), 22 So. 71; ... Ward v. Reynolds, 32 Ala. 384; A. G. S. Ry. v ... Moody, 92 Ala. 279, 9 So. 238; State v. Finch, ... 70 Iowa, 316, 30 N.W. 578, 59 Am. Rep. 443; 1 Wigmore on Ev ... § 716; Sou. Ry. v. Morris (Ala.) 42 So. 17 ... The ... form used in charge 2, requested by the defendant, has been ... frequently condemned by this court. There being other counts ... in the indictment, the court ... ...
-
American Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J., v. Fuller, 7 Div. 115.
... ... the owner, whose actual knowledge is proved or can be ... assumed, as in case of common articles, but not otherwise, ... may state the value of personal property, such as farm or ... domestic animals, carriages, crops, houses, or other ... buildings." ... In the ... property and its intrinsic merits." Ward v ... Reynolds, 32 Ala. 384; State v. Finch, 70 Iowa, ... 316, 30 N.W. 578, 59 Am. Rep. 443; Western Ry. Co. v ... Price, 192 Ala. 430, 68 So. 278. Our statute, section ... 7656, is but ... ...
-
Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Moody
...general observation and experience and knowledge of the property and its intrinsic merits. Ward v. Reynolds, 32 Ala. 384; State v. Finch, 70 Iowa, 316, 30 N.W. 578; Cantling v. Railroad Co., 54 Mo. Neither is there error in refusing to exclude the evidence of Hollins and Bridges, which was ......