The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louis Streicher and David Taffet, Appellants

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louis Streicher and David Taffet, Appellants. First Department, May 1, 1914. Crime — petit larceny by means of false pretenses — evidence insufficient to sustain conviction. Upon the trial of defendants for the crime of petit larceny perpetrated by means of false pretenses, inducing the plaintiff to advance a certain amount of money upon the security of jewelry, which they fraudulently and falsely represented to be worth a certain amount, whereas in fact it was of little value, there can be no conviction in the absence of evidence of the value of the jewelry. 2iot only the making of the representations, but their falsity, must be shown. Appeal by the defendants, Louis Streicher and another, from a judgment of the Court of "Special Sessions of the City of New York, rendered against them on the 31st day of March, 1913, convicting them of the crime of petit larceny. K. Henry Rosenberg, for the appellants. George Z. Medalie, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Scott, J.:] Scott, J.: The defendants were convicted in the Court of Special Sessions of the crime of petit larceny by means of false pretenses, the claim being that they had induced the complaining witness, an apparently ignorant woman, to advance $25 upon the security of two earrings which they falsely and fraudulently represented to be worth $400, whereas in fact and truth the said earrings were not worth $400 or even $25. The representations were fully proven and the earrings were produced in court, but no evidence whatever was given as to their value. The crime, therefore, was not proven for it was essential in order to establish it that the People should show not only the making of the representations, but their falsity. The objection was timely made by the defendants’ counsel, but was overruled and ignored by the court. It may be that the defendants were guilty, as the district attorney insists, but to justify their conviction it was essential that some proof should be given of each essential element going to constitute the crime for which they were- tried. This was not done. The judgment of conviction must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial granted. Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin and Dowling, JJ., concurred. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered. Order to be settled on notice.