Court Opinion

ID: 9767359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:17:28.954866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.779101
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
Appellant has presented a motion for rehearing and by oral argument insists that, in the state of the evidence, the court should have charged on the theft of property under the value of $5.00.
A review of the statement of facts on the subject of value shows that the wife had purchased the watch as a present for the injured party, presumably during Christmas preceding the 17th day of April, 1951, and that she gave $55.00 for it on the market. The wrist band was purchased by his daughter for the price of $10.00. There is no objection to the admission of this evidence and it was before the jury for their consideration. The jeweler who testified as to the value of the watch had not ex*25amined it but his testimony was to the effect that a watch of the make described would have a second-hand value on the market of $25.00. He made no mention of the wrist band. On cross-examination he stated, among other things, that if it was in good condition it was worth more than $5.00. The injured party testified that “the watch kept very good time.” Considering the original cost of the watch, the statement of the injured party that it kept very good time, and the testimony of the expert, it seems to be positively proven it had a value of more than $5.00. This is not controverted by any evidence whatsoever and we see no occasion for the court submitting to the jury a charge on the theft of property under the value of $5.00.
The original opinion discusses very clearly other questions raised in the case which need not be further considered. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.