Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Hon.J.P.Bryan County Attorney Brazoria County Angleton, Texae Deer Sir: Opinion MO. o-1114 Rer May two pereons have thaiwan& figure as a brand but pl$eh--et a'ditier- ent point on the a&~@~ bow

aona aould have the mme

aan appreolate to locate any ohs4 available au- ok8 tonehlng upa the question

require eaoh owner st to braiibing subibjeot 1 of tltl& 121 of the Re- 1926, t6 hate hi8 aark e or the ecnmlq olerk, No mention Is aade Art. 1436, Penal Code.

clerk w&o ahall reoord aar e permm having the awee reoorded aignate the part of the animal upca

In the~oase of PIuEslarrava. STATE' 1 Tex. 4r. B. 480, the &iiendant had beea oonvioted o$ sattle theft

Bon. J.P. Bryan, page 8

and exiqqeel tke oourtiwrcter Vhcre 18 no avldenas sizown Lp the rroard before ~8 that thu prcperky al.ls@ to have been stolen was tla4property at the percron alleged in the 15dlaClllcsntto bo the owner, u- oq?t that turnlshod by the reeord of the brand of Hermy 8. 234helnET, IO* * . The 20th and 42~14 atlatlons of the dot et th4 Le(Si8lntur4, r;p-~vra LLar4heS, 1894 (PPlcphlot Aats, 33), raquirtthat In moording bratxae, the perran having tks all~9e rcoorded shall dwl6;nate the pert of the udmal upon vbloh ths brand 1~ pLan4Q.

-ho rcoord of the bread OS Hi?ary8. Sohdmr, 1111&iVt8 iQ tho Et0teQM6 Of tUtItS, 84y4 *t&4 brand urts to b4 put upon th4 hip', wklle th@ 8ti- &tntm ~howethat the brurQ on t&a enI&818 8llcged to h4ve bsea st.4144use plaoed on the rlbe. Th484 dle4r4pmoiee em tco @eat and too rpnttrial W 6 rparrant oo5vietion felony i&en th4 proof ot a of mtrehlp 84p4nd4d alomo, or oeialr, opoa the

4mzrulln~ Oh4 defsnUant*s motioa far a maw tri(r.~ (unelnoeclng QUrs).

=A.&. 983 (Frarreiit P.C. ti providea that If cay alerk of oML1 record any brand rhan the p4ruan hsr*io(t the aam reoord4d Bile to dudgnat4 the part Qi the anti1 upon sblob the 04~ I8 to b4 plaala, e~;allbe fine6 not leas tMn tea (410) acr st4r4 than fSty (@O) dollars. VBnleiW 6&t 5-6 of the animal upm rlkieh ths brmh ir, 60 be pl444d ii d*plgnaceU,ohr braad +mald not bs r%4QrdM et aZ1, and beaoe aould be wide?04 of ROthinS though It should b6 mwrdtd, th4 aat of Et0 CA

Boa. J.P. Bryan, pa&e 3

ing euoh a brand by the olerk le an offense against the laws of this stat4. * * * * There must be oertainty _ _ae.tos the porf;ionof the animal upon wbloh the brand 16 to De placea; ate ;EI$E YE. STATE& 69 S.W. 325; STBED vs. STATE, 67 S.W. . Also, we refer you to the oaaea of HARWELL ~8. STATE, 8 S.W. 606: HAYS vs. STATE, 17 S.W. 940) MASm ~0).STATE, 19 S.W. 908; MoGREW VS. STATE, 20 S.-W.740; DIJGAT~8. STATE, 148 S.W. 789. From a reading of the above oaaee and the appli- oatlon of the Penal Statute although said artlole may not be applloableto Braeoria Qountr ( ate Art. 9005, Vernon's Ann. Clv. Statr.), we hold the opinion that you were omreot in adrlelng your oounty oltrk that it 18 poesiblt for two person8 to have the same ii 8 a6 a brad, if they plaoe it at a dl8tinotlvelydf?= fferent plaoe on the anW*r body. Trusting the abort ratiofaotorily anawero your tiqulry,we are Yours very truly

n@111n Woodall BW,ob

~~pR~VEDNOV 1, 1939