178 THKFT AND REMOVAL OF ANIMALS. 



that J. was the owner of a horse and that it was in his posses- 

 sion and the evidence was that he was the owner but not in 

 possession at the time;^* where the ownership of a cow was 

 alleged to be in B. and possession in A. and W. and the evi- 

 dence showed that the possession was in B. alone.** But it 

 is sometimes provided that where the animal may be other- 

 wise identified, a mistake in the allegation of ownership shall 

 not be material.*' 



55. The Description in the Indictment — The animal should 

 be sufficiently described in the indictment for the purpose of 

 identification. Where a hog was described as the property 

 of A. this was held sufficient, without further description of 

 the hog.*® But to call an animal a "yearHng," where the kind 

 of animal was not disclosed, was held insufficient.*'^ The fol- 

 lowing descriptions were held sufficient: "Two certain 

 oxen ;" ** "one certain calf of the neat cattle kind ;" *® "one 

 beef cattle." *" A designation of the species is enough with- 

 out using the generic term "cattle" : hence a "beef steer" is a 

 sufficient description.*^ But where the proof was that the 

 animal so described was a steer but not a beef steer, the vari- 

 ance was held to be fatal, though the description need not 

 have been so full.®^ So, although an indictment need not de- 

 scribe a brand, if that be done, a variance in the proof thereof 

 will be fatal."' 



An indictment should specify the number of animals 



" Hall V. State, 22 Tex. App. 632. And see Alexander v. State, 24 id. 

 126; Williams v. State, 26 id. 131. 



" Owens V. State, 28 Tex. App. 122. 



" See McBride v. Com., 13 Bush. (Ky.) 337. 



" Peo. V. Stanford, 64 Cal. 27. 



" Stollenwerk v. State, 55 Ala. 142. 



" Henry v. State, 45 Tex. 84. " Grant v. State, 3 Tex. App. i. 



" Duval V. State, 8 Tex. App. 370. 



" Robertson v. State, i Tex. App. 311; State v. Lawn, 80 Mo. 241; State 

 V. Bowers (Mo.), i S. W. Rep. 288. 



"' Cameron v. State, g Tex. App. 332. 



""Allen V. State, 8 Tex. App. 360. So, of a description of ear-marks; 

 Robertson v. State, 97 Ga. 206. 



