SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

should have been an expert in the strict technical sense of the word. His statement that he had informed himself as to the prevailing prices or values of the hour were all sufficient to make him competent as a witness in this regard, subject, of course, to the right of cross-examination to test his competency and credibility. But, moreover, as already stated, the property alleged to have been embezzled, being that of the Isthmian Canal Commission, the question of the value was immaterial, the only requirement being that the property must not be valuele3s. In all cases where it is necessary to prove only some value it-has been held that "direct evidence proving the precise value is not required. The jury may infer that the stolen property has value from the evidence of its character and use." (Underhill Criminal Evidence, p. 358, sec. 298; Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 464.)
The next assignment of error relates to the impeachment of the witnesses, Louis Aris and Wilbert Von Certon. It is claimed that the evidence of the witness, Wilbert Von Certon, who testified in substance, that he was the steward for the hotel, and that he bought the supplies, and that he had for some time bought them for the hotel, in the market, except on Mondays, on which days the commissary supplies were uniformly delivered to the hotel, and that the defendant, Peterson, told him that he need not buy meat in the market on Mondays, should not have been regarded by the court because of the alleged impeachment of the said Von Certon. The impeachment of Von Certon was claimed as the result of certain negotiations or transactions between him and the defendant, Silvers, from which it might be inferred that Von Certon desired to secure a loan of $120 from Silvers, in consideration of which he would leave the country and not appear as a witness, but there is much uncertainty and contradiction of evidence as to who sought the interviews and introduced the negotiations leading up to this matter, and, looking at the evidence in this respect as a whole, we can not say that the court below would not have been justified in finding that the original overture came front Silvers instead of Von Certon.
As to the impeachment of Aris, the driver of the wagon, who testified that, "sometimes Mr. Peterson or Mr. Silvers told me to go to the dredge landing to Mr. Hines," and who also testified to his covering the goods in question with grass by the direction of Hines when he did go to the dredge landing to receive the goods from the latter, it was claimed that this was successfuly done, by the testimony of numerous witnesses who stated in substance

94