People v. Haney

PRESTON, P. J.

The appellant was charged jointly with Allen Curts with the crime of grand theft consisting of the stealing of three sets of harness, seven horse-collars, seven halters, several bridles, one saddle, one saddle blanket, trappings and a pair of chaps, of a total value in excess of $200, belonging to W. H. Flournoy. The defendant Curts admitted his participation in the crime. The appellant was separately tried and found guilty of grand theft. The accomplice, Allen Curts, was the chief witness against

[475]

him. From the judgment of conviction the defendant has appealed.

The appellant contends the evidence fails to support the verdict for the reason that there is a lack of corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice, and because the only evidence that the value of the stolen property exceeds the sum of $200 was furnished by the owner Flournoy, who failed to qualify himself as a witness regarding the valuation on account of a lack of knowledge of recent sales of second-hand property of that nature.

The owner of personal property who is familiar with its original cost and use is qualified to testify regarding its value, independently of his knowledge of recent sales of similar second-hand property. (1 Wigmore on Evidence, 813, sec. 716;

Hood

v.

Bekins Van & Storage Co.,

178 Cal. 151 [172 Pac. 594];

Klind

v.

Valley County Bank,

69 Mont. 386 [222 Pac. 439] ;

Vukmanovich

v.

State Assur. Co.,

82 Mont. 52 [264 Pac. 933] ; Third Dec. Dig., " Evidence”, sec. 474 [19].)

The text of Wigmore on Evidence, above cited, reads as follows: “The owner of an article, whether he is generally familiar with such values or not, ought certainly to be allowed to estimate its worth. ” The primary question of the qualification of a witness to express an opinion regarding the value of property rests chiefly upon the sound discretion of the trial judge exercised according to well-established rules of evidence. Except for an abuse of this discretion, the admission of such evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. The weight of the evidence must be determined solely by the jury.