The appellant was convicted of grand', larceny. He was seen in the act of stealing seven sport coats in a department store. He argues on appeal that a verdict of acquittal should have been directed because the Government failed to prove a-, value of at least $100 which, in this jurisdiction, is essential to a conviction of' grand larceny. Section 22-2201, D.C., Code (1961). He also complains of the-court’s failure to instruct on the included, offense of petit larceny.

The only proof of value was a- hearsay statement that the coats cost the-store $22.32 each — an aggregate of more-than $100 — but the appellant did not object. Had he done so, the prosecution would have had an opportunity to introduce direct evidence of value. In such-circumstances, we do not consider it proper to notice the error, although we may-do so under Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A.

It was unnecessary to instruct onpetit larceny because there was nothing- *335 in the evidence to indicate a value of less than $100. Burcham v. United States, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 283, 163 F.2d 761 (1947). Moreover, such an instruction was not requested and no objection to its omission was made.

Affirmed.