186 THEFT AND REMOVAL OP ANIMALS. 



are driven from their range, the act may be prosecuted in one 

 indictment.^'* 



In an indictment for unlawfully driving cattle out of the 

 country without inspection, it must be alleged that they were 

 not the defendant's property and were driven without the 

 owner's authority.^*' Where they are driven from a range 

 it is not necessary to describe the range nor to allege how far 

 they have been driven.^"* "The expression 'range' or 'ac- 

 customed range,' as used in the statute, is matter of local de- 

 scription and, unlike a generic term requiring the species to 

 be stated, it admits of proof under the general allegation, 

 without defining by averments the limits of the range." ^^'^ 



60. Altering Brands and Marks Another statutory offense 



similar to larceny is the altering of the brands or marks of 

 animals with fraudulent intent. This intent is an essential 

 ingredient:^"* the want of the owner's consent is not alone 

 sufficient.^"* The intent and want of consent should both be 

 alleged in the indictment j^*" and so should the ownership of 

 the animal.^®^ And a variance in the proof of ownership is 

 fatal.^*^ But an indictment will lie for unlawfully branding 

 a colt whose owner is unknown.^®^ And where the mother 

 of the animal branded was milked by the defendant and went 

 with his cattle for four years but the defendant always said she 

 was an estray, a charge that the possession for four years 

 made her the defendant's property was erroneous.^** Mere 



'" Long V. State, 43 Tex. 467. "' Heard v. State, 8 Tex. App. 466. 



"™ Darnell v. State, 43 Tex. 147. 



"" State V. Thompson, 40 Tex. 515; Foster v. State, 21 Tex. App. 80. 



'°° Morgan v. State, 13 Fla. 671 ; State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55. 



™ Fossett V. State, 11 Tex. App. 40; Montgomery v. State (Tex. App.), 

 13 S. W. Rep. 1000. 



"" State V. Hall, 27 Tex. 333. 



In State v. Stelly, 48 La. Ann. 1478, it was held that an indictment for 

 feloniously marking a hog need not allege the intent to steal nor whose or 

 what the mark was. 



™ State V. Faucett, 15 Tex. 584. '"^ Mayes v. State, 33 Tex. 340. 



"" State V. Haws, 41 Tex. 161. 



'" Reed v. State (Tex. Cr.), 22 S. W. Rep. 402. 



