"While the reasonable market value of the property at the time of the larceny was the question to be determined by the jury, any facts which would reasonably tend to enable them to intelligently determine such question was competent and proper." Filson v. Territory, 67 P. 473, 474 (Okla. 1901).

"Expert witnesses are not needed to prove the market value of chattels in common use when such value is within the knowledge of persons of ordinary intelligence." Filson v. Terr., 11 Okla. 351, 67 P. 473. Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; William Randolph, Judge.

It seems to be the established and well-recognized rule in a majority of the states whose decisions we have examined that in cases involving the theft of personal property, the value at issue is the market value of the property at the time and place of the theft. ( Robinson v. State, 107 Neb. 591 [186 N.W. 977]; People v. Cole, 54 Mich. 238 [19 N.W. 968]; State v. Mall, 112 Kan. 63 [209 P. 820]; State v. Maggard, 160 Mo. 469 [83 Am. St. Rep. 484, 61 S.W. 184]; Filson v. Territory, 11 Okl. 351 [ 67 P. 473]; Cunningham v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. Rep. 500 [ 236 S.W. 89]; Keipp v. State, 51 Tex.Crim.

In making this determination, the jury could properly consider the original cost, the period of time which had elapsed since the purchase, the amount of use to which they had been subjected, their physical condition at the time they were stolen, and any other circumstances affecting their actual value. Filson v. Territory, 11 Okla. 361, 67 P. 473; Lambert v. State, 91 Neb. 520, 136 N.W. 720; State v. McComas, supra; Myers v. State, supra. Such an instruction recogognizes the element of replacement value, which was used by the Trial Judge, but does not make such value the sole criterion.

It is true, however, that the jury may consider the cost new of articles of used personal property, and their use, and decrease in value by their use, in determining their reasonable value at the time of damage or destruction, deducting a reasonable sum for deterioration in value by reason of their use and damage, and thereby arrive at the fair market value of such articles. Filson v. Territory of Oklahoma, 11 Okla. 351, 67 P. 473. But where, as in this case, the property had no market value, in arriving at the damages sustained resort may be had to any facts which fairly tend to show the actual value of the property at time of damage to the owner, and a permissible method of proof is by showing the cost of replacing the property, less any depreciation from age, use, utility or condition. Mitchell et al. v. Wadsworth, supra; Kennedy v. Treleaven, 103 Kan. 651, 175 P. 977; 15 Am.Jur., Damages, § 125; 25 C.J.S. Damages, § 157.

We believe the owner's testimony as to the value of the stolen property was properly admitted. The rule with reference to proving value of secondhand property that is stolen, as stated in Filson v. Territory, 11 Okla. 351, 67 P. 473, 474, seems to us to be entirely fair and reasonable. It is as follows: "It was not error for the trial court to permit the owner of the property to testify what the harness cost new. It was shown that the harness had only been used for a short time, and had been well cared for.

"Expert witnesses are not required to prove the reasonable market value of chattels in common use and the reasonable market price of which is within the knowledge of persons of ordinary intelligence and experience." Goldie Filson v. Territory of Okla., 11 Okla. 351, 67 P. 473. "Rules of evidence are not so technical as to require expert witnesses to prove the reasonable or market values of chattels such as ordinary wearing apparel common use where it is apparent from the facts proven that the value of the articles are in the knowledge of persons of ordinary intelligence and experience."

The testimony complained of in relation to the cost of the articles was elicited by the plaintiff on cross-examination. In any event it has been held that cost might be an item in determining the value of articles, depreciation being also considered. Filson v. Territory, 11 Okla. 351, 67 P. 473; Burgess v. Felix, 42 Okla. 193, 140 P. 1180. Error is also alleged upon the court's instruction upon the measure of damages, and upon certain questions allowed to be asked the witnesses in relation to the value of the goods.

"Nor where the verdict is 'amply' sustained by the evidence." ( Robinson v. Territory, 16 Okla. 241, 85 P. 451; Filson v. Territory, 11 Okla. 351, 67 P. 473.) "Nor where the evidence 'strongly' tends to support the verdict."

"Expert witnesses are not needed to prove the * * * market value of chattels in common use, where such value is within the knowledge of persons of ordinary intelligence and experience." Filson v. Territory, 11 Okla. 351, 67 P. 473. In speaking upon this subject, and the tendency of courts, Justice Burford uses this language: