OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS 201 
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 
375, 48 Pac. 502; State v. Car- 
delli, 19 Nev. 319, 10 Pac. 433; 
Poage v. State, 43 Tex. 454. 
79 Reese v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 
539, 67 8. W. 325. 
80 Ledbetter v. State, 35 
Tex. Crim. 195, 32 S. W. 903. 
81 Dixon v. State, 19 Tex. 
134; Love v. State, 15 Tex. 
App. 563. 
82 Brooke v. People, 23 Col. 
83 McClure v. Sheek, 68 Tex. 
426,48. W. 552. 
84 Stewart v. Hunter, 16 Ore. 
62, 16 Pac. 876, 8 Am. St. R. 
267, 
