OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS 251 



and it is wise to record in each, county in which 

 the stock are likely to be found in large numbers. 

 Where the statute provides that no brand shall be 

 recorded unless the record also states the part of 

 the animal branded, it was held that a record of 

 a brand "on the shoulder or side" was prohib- 

 ited."^ In other words, the brand should always 

 be placed upon the same part of the animal, and 

 the place selected should be one which is conven- 

 ient for identification with the least trouble. Un- 

 less the statute requires that the kind of animal 

 upon which the brand is used be recorded, that 

 need not be stated.^*^ It has sometimes been a 

 practice that the stock owner have one brand for 

 his cattle, and another for his horses. This prac- 

 tice is objectionable. 



An unrecorded mark may be an evidence of 

 ownership, ^^ and it may be used as an evidence 

 of the identity of an animal.^^ A statute pro- 

 viding that a party shall have but one mark does 

 not prohibit the owner from changing his mark.^'* 

 In Oregon it was held that the record of a brand 

 of stock in the office of the clerk of the county 

 court is not constructive evidence that an animal 

 so branded belongs to the owner of the brand. ^^ 

 On the other hand, in Texas it was held that a 

 registered cattle brand is prima facie proof of 



79 Reese v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 375, 48 Pac. 502; State v. Car- 

 539, 67 S. W. 325. delli, 19 Nev. 319, 10 Pac. 433; 



80 Ledbetter v. State, 35 Poage v. State, 43 Tex. 4o4. 

 Tex. Crim. 195, 32 S. W. 903. 83 McCIure v. Sheek. 68 Tex. 



81 Dixon V. State, 19 Tex, 426, 4 S. W. 552. 



134; Ix)ve V. State, 15 Tex. s* Stewart v. Hunter, 16 Ore. 



App. 563. 62, 16 Pac. 876, 8 Am. St. R. 



8^ Brooke v. People, 23 Col. 267. 



