OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS 2538 
judge, plaintiff could not arbitrarily determine 
that an animal belonging to defendant was not 
his. 
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.°4 
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 protection to stock own- 
ers, 1t 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 astranger, 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 8. 95 State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 
Dak. 482, 107 N. W. 692. 55. 
92 State v. Davis, 24 N. C. 96 Hunt v. State, 33 Tex. 
153. Crim. 93, 25 S. W. 127. 
93 Slaughter v. State, 7 Tex. 97 Bruns vy. 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. 
