71 A.2d 753
Court of General Sessions of Delaware, Sussex County.
February 25, 1950.
CAREY, J., sitting
Daniel J. Layton, Jr., Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Jack White for defendants.
Court of General Sessions for Sussex County, Indictment for larceny, No. 46, February Term, 1950.
The defendants were jointly indicted for the larceny of a certain check described in the indictment as follows: “Issued by Premium Bag Company upon the National Marine Bank, Baltimore, Maryland, being check No. 00043, in the sum of $56.49, dated 8/1/40, payable to the order of Norman Baylis, care of Irving D. Burton, and endorsed by Norman Baylis.” The check was alleged to be the property of Irving D. Burton Co. At the trial, the check was offered in evidence and admitted without objection. It bore no marks indicating that it had been cashed or paid or that payment had been stopped. Nothing appeared to indicate that it had any other value than the amount shown upon its face. According to the State’s testimony, the theft occurred on August 5 or 6, 1949.
At the end of the State’s case, counsel for the defendants moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the State had failed to prove that the check had any value.
Page 264
CAREY, Judge.
The motion must be denied. 5200 Revised Code of Delaware 1935, as amended by 43 Laws of Delaware, Ch. 235, expressly makes checks of the value of $25 or more the subject of grand larceny. Paragraph (f) of this section reads in part as follows: “In all prosecutions under this section the value of promissory notes, bank notes, bills of exchange, cheques, bonds, and other evidence of debt shall be deemed the sum of money due thereon or secured thereby and remaining unsatisfied * * *”. Statutes containing words almost identical with this have uniformly been construed as laying down a rule of evidence, under which the face value is deemed to be its actual value, subject to rebuttal. State v O’Connell, 144 Mo. 387, 46 S.W. 175; Whalen v. Commonwealth, 90 Va. 544, 19 S.E. 182, 192; State v. Harrison, 347 Mo. 1230, 152 S.W.2d 161; State v. Cassill, 71 Mont. 274, 229 P. 716. I express no opinion concerning the application of this statute where the check presented has something on its face indicating that it has been paid or is worthless; conceivably, the quoted part of the statute might have no application in such event.