50 DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



the part of the animal indicated in the record, or the dis- 

 crepancy must be explained.** The variance does not affect 

 the admissibility of the record in evidence but only its pro- 

 bative force.*^ But v^rhere the record is uncertain as to the 

 part of the animal, as directed by the statute, it is inadmissible 

 in evidence.*® A record stating that the brand should be on 

 the left or right side is sufficient;*' or that it is on "hip, thigh 

 and flank." *« 



Where the brand is mistakable'^ a verdict of guilty of driving 

 the cattle from their range will not be supported.** 



When, by reason of their obscurity, a question arises as to 

 the brands on animals alleged to have been stolen, the testi- 

 mony of experts in deciphering brands is admissible to show 

 what they are.**" 



The offence of unlawfully altering brands and marks will 

 be treated of in another part of this work.^^ 



PART II. TAXATION OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



19. Taxation of Domestic Animals — Domestic animals are 

 taxable like other personal property, and it is not necessary to 

 treat here of the general principles of the law of taxation. 

 Some questions as to situs have arisen, however, which con- 

 cern animals as such, owing to their power to roam and the 

 necessity of their being fed and sheltered. 



The general rule that the domicile of the owner is the place 

 where by a legal fiction his personal property is considered 

 to have its situs for purposes of taxation, applies to the case 



" Myers v. State, 24 Tex. App. 334. 

 " Harwell v. State, 22 Tex. App. 251. 

 " Massey v. State (Tex.), 19 S. W. Rep. 908. 

 " Hayes v. State, 30 Tex. App. 404. 



" Thompson v. State, 25 Tex. App. 161. And see McGrew v. State, 31 

 Tex. Cr. 336. 

 " Yoakum v. State, 21 Tex. App. 260. 

 ''° Askew V. Peo., 23 Colo. 446. 

 " See § 60, infra. 



