Case ID: mich_42/html/0144-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Graves, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William H. Printz v. The People.
    
      Witmess — Competency to testify to value.
    
    One who complains of the theft of a seal-skin cloak which she has worn for one winter, and who testifies that she has priced such articles, is competent to testify to its value.
    Error to Wayne.
    Submitted Oct. 29.
    Decided Oct. 30.
    Larceny. Respondent was convicted of the theft of a seal-skin saeque, which the owner testified was worth $125, and was sentenced to the State Prison for five years.
    
      Hawley & Firnane for plaintiff in error.
    The fact that a witness has priced articles of merchandise does not make him competent to testify' to the value of a similar article, (Greeley v. Stilson, 27 Mich., 153; where there is no competent evidence to show that stolen property was worth more than $25, the respondent should be acquitted of the higher grade of larceny, and if convicted should be discharged on review of the case, State v. Moon, 41 Wis., 684; People v. Gordon, 40 Mich., 716; a person convicted of a trivial crime and convicted again on new trial, is entitled to have his punishment mitigated to some extent by the imprisonment to which he was subjected when the penalty was imposed, Kistler v. State, 54 Ind., 400. See State v. Thompson, 46 Ia., 699.
    Attorney General Otto Kirchner for the People.
   Graves, J.

The witness, Mary McKenzie, was competent to give the, value of her seal-skin cloak. It was part of her personal apparel, which she had worn one winter. She testified that she had priced such articles, and that this one was certainly worth one hundred and twenty-five dollars. The evidence was regular and within previous decisions. It was not necessary to call dealers in second-hand furs.

The remaining objection is covered by Cummins v. The People, just decided, ante, p. 142.

There is no error and the judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.