
    Rufus Francis v. State of Mississippi.
    [39 South. Rep., 897.]
    Ckijiinau Law. Larceny. Evidence. Value of property. Code 1892, § 1173.
    To warrant a conviction for grand larceny under Code 1892, § 1173, making it grand larceny to steal property of the value of twenty-five dollars or more, it is necessary tkat.it be shown beyond every reasonable doubt arising from tlie evidence that the property stolen was of not less value than twenty-five dollars.
    From the circuit court of Harrison county.
    TIon. William T. McDonald, Judge.
    
      Francis, the appellant, was indicted and tried for and convicted of grand larceny, and appealed to the supreme court. The indictment charges that he took and carried away, feloniously, jewelry, the property of another, of the value of four hundred and thirty-two dollars. On the trial of the case, the owner of the jewelry testified as a witness for the state, and fixed the value on three pieces of jewelry aggregating sixteen dollars and twenty-five cents, but did not affix any value to the other pieces of jewelry stolen, and the property itself was not exhibited to the jury for inspection.
    W. U. Maybin, for appellant.
    An examination of the' evidence in the record demonstrates that the value of the property alleged to have been stolen was not proved to exceed sixteen dollars and twenty-five cents; and, the conviction having been for grand larceny, of course it ought to be reversed.
    
      R. V. Fletcher, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
    It was left to the jury to say whether the stolen articles were of greater value than twenty-five dollars; and while the owner of the jewelry seemed modest about fixing value on her property, the description of the articles on which she did not fix value was sufficient to enable the jury to find that the whole aggregated in value a sum exceeding twenty-five dollars.
    Argued orally by W. E. Maybin, for appellant, and by R. F. Fletcher, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
   Whiteield, O. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In view of the rule that, to sustain a charge of grand larceny, the evidence must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the property was of the value necessary to constitute that offense, this case must be reversed and a- new trial awarded. So ordered.

Reversed.  