48 DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



branded animals about to be sold and shipped out of the 

 county and to sell them and keep the proceeds for the un- 

 known owner, makes the brand rather than possession the 

 chief prima facie evidence of title and is not unconstitutional.*^ 

 Where the statute declares that only recorded brands are ad- 

 missible as evidence of ownership, it must be strictly complied 

 with.*^ But this does not prohibit the introduction of evi- 

 dence of flesh-marks or other proof of ownership, including 

 unrecorded brands, where the object is to identify the ani- 

 mal.** And the fact that the owner of a stolen animal failed 

 to brand it according to statute is no defence where the ani- 

 mal is otherwise sufificiently identified.** Where the law re- 

 quires marks to be recorded, but does not state that they shall 

 not be evidence of ownership unless recorded, as in the case 

 of brands, an unrecorded mark is admissible as proof of 

 ownership.*" 



The record of a brand is constructive notice that the animal 

 so branded belongs to the owner of the brand.*® But the 

 brand on a stolen horse is not evidence to prove ownership 

 in one claiming as a purchaser from the original owner.*^ 

 Evidence of the brand of the alleged owner of a stolen calf is 



" Beyman v. Black, 47 Tex. 558. 



""Allen V. State, 42 Tex. 517; McKenzie v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 568. 



" Hutto V. State, 7 Tex. App. 44; Tittle v. State, 30 id. 597; Gregory v. 

 Munn (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. Rep. 1083; Lockwood v. State, 32 Tex. 

 Cr. 137; Poage v. State, 43 Tex. 454; State v. Cardelli, 19 Nev. 319; 

 Brooke v. Peo., 23 Colo. 375. 



"The brand law does not require that the ownership of an animal must 

 be proved by the brand itself. Ownership may be proved by flesh marks 

 or any other proper evidence, in the same way as if no brand law was in 

 existence. Proof by brand under our statute is only an additional method 

 of proving ownership, and is especially applicable in the case of range 

 animals: " Chavez v. Ty., supra. 



" Bazell V. State, 89 Ala. 14. And see Byrd v. State, 26 Tex. App. 374. 



" Wyers v. State, 22 Tex. App. 258. And see Peo. v. Bolanger, 71 Cal. 

 17; State V. King, 84 N. C. 737. 



"Stewart v. Hunter, 16 Oreg. 62. And see Brooks v. State (Tex 

 Cr.),3i S. W. Rep. 410. 



=' Horn V. State, 30 Tex. App. 541. Cf. Chavez v. Ty., supra. 



