OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS 253 



judge, plaintiff could not arbitrarily determine 

 that an animal belonging to defendant was not 

 his.^i 



201. Altering of Brand. Anything which 

 makes proof of property more difficult is consid- 

 ered as altering a brand.^^ The offense may be 

 committed by merely clipping the hair at the orig- 

 inal brand.^^ Putting on a new brand is altering 

 a brand.^^ 



Altering a brand is not a felony unless it is done 

 with intent to steal, or convert the animal to the 

 use of the person so doing it.^^ 



In Texas, as a further jDrotection to stock own- 

 ers, it is provided that if a butcher kills unmarked 

 cattle for market, or purchases and kills any ani- 

 mal without a written transfer from the vendor he 

 shall be fined. Under this statute it was held that 

 a butcher who slaughtered two unmarked cattle 

 for a stranger, and then bought and sold them, was 

 properly convicted.^*^ The statute also provides 

 for the reporting of cattle slaughtered to the 

 county commissioners' court. A butcher cannot 

 excuse himself for failure to report to the county 

 commissioners' court at each term the number 

 and description of the animals slaughtered by 

 him, by producing a report for said term, sworn 

 to and filed at a later term.^^ 



91 Belknap v. Belknap, 20 S. 95 State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 

 Dak. 482, 107 N. W. 692. 55. 



92 State V. Davis, 24 N. C. so Hunt v. State, 33 Tex. 

 153. Crim. 93, 25 S. W. 127. 



93 Slaughter v. State, 7 Tex. 97 Bruns v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 

 App. 123. 415, 26 S. W. 722. 



94 Atzroth V. State, 10 Fla. 

 207 ; Linney v. State, 6 Tex. 1, 

 55 Am. Dec. 756. 



