It is unnecessary that the stolen property, even though bank notes, should be produced as evidence in court,25 though this may be done20 in the discretion of the court if the articles are first identified as having been stolen." The identity of money received in evidence with the stolen money is for the jury.28 If the article is not produced the owner may testify to the marks thereon."" But a witness cannot be permitted to prove a previous description, not verified by oath, which he received from a person who went in search of the stolen property,30 or to testify that such a description corresponds with his recollection. A witness to the identity of the property need not be positive but may give his opinion based in personal knowledge, though a witness will not be permitted to testify that on the previous date the owner identified it.32 An indictment for stealing chickens,33 a cow,3 a horse," or a hog, 36 is sustained by proof of the larceny of any variety or sex of the animal.37 52; State v. Hill, 65 Mo. 84, 85; Wiley v. State, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 362, 375; Turley v. State, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 323, 324. 25 Moore v. Commonwealth, 2 Leigh (Va.) 701, 706; Spittorff v. State, 108 Ind. 171, 172, 8 N. E. 911; State v. Clark, 27 Utah 55, 74 Pac. 119. Ledbetter v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. 195, 32 S. W. 903; Lue v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 15 S. W. 664; Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 23 So. 40; Hooten v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 6, 108 S. W. 651. 27 Buchanan v. State, 109 Ala. 7, 19 So. 410. 28 'Hooten v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 6, 108 S. W. 651. 31 phy, 15 Wash. 98, 45 Pac. 729; Minor v. State, 55 Fla. 77, 46 So. 297. But compare, contra, Elliston v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 575, 99 S. W. 999. 32 Anderson v. State, 14 Tex. App. 49, 52. Where the owner identified goods found in defendant's possession from their quality and color the defendant should be allowed to show, by a witness having experience in such matters, that a merchant cannot identify goods from color and quality alone. Buchanan v. State, 109 Ala. 7, 19 So. 410. 33 State v. Bassett, 34 La. Ann. 1108. Parker v. State, 39 Ala. 365. 35 Davis v. State, 23 Tex. App. 210, 211, 4 S. W. 590. * State v. Godet, 7 Ired. (N. Car.) 210, 211. *It will be presumed that the animals alleged to have been stolen were alive. If they were dead it should be so stated, for an indictment for stealing an animal is not sustained by proof of stealing a carcass. Rex v. 40 42 Money or valuable securities stolen must be properly identified, and the proof of the money missing, or which was found in the possession of the prisoner, must agree substantially with that alleged in the indictment. A witness may be permitted to see coins found in the possession of the accused for the purpose of identifying them as stolen.38 Where it is alleged that bank notes,39 promissory notes, treasury notes,11 or money,12 were stolen the proof must correspond with the allegation, and any material variance will be fatal. But strict proof of the identity of money is not required. The identity of stolen money may be determined from circumstantial evidence. So where several bills of high denomination were stolen, evidence was received to show that the accused had bills of that sort in his possession after the larceny, though. before he had been destitute.** 43 Evidence of the genuineness and value of stolen bank bills, or of the corporate existence of the bank, is proper, though usually the jury may infer these facts, as from an admission by the accused that he had passed them for value.* Parol evidence may be given to prove the genuineness of stolen bank notes or checks, without producing them or accounting for their non Halloway, C. & P. 127; Common- Metc. (Mass.) 534, 537, 45 Am. wealth v. Beaman, 8 Gray (Mass.) Dec. 227; Anglin V. State, 52 497, 499. Tex. Cr. 475, 107 S. W. 835; Russell v. State (Ala.), 38 So. State v. Johnson, 36 Wash. 294, 78 291. *Pomeroy v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. Cas. 342. "Stewart v. State, 62 Md. 412, 415. "State v. Collins, 72 N. Car. 144, 145; Keating v. People, 160 Ill. 480, 43 N. E. 724; State v. Clark, 27 Utah 55, 74 Pac. 119. "Lancaster v. State, 9 Tex. App. 393, 395; Braxton v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 632, 99 S. W. 994; Hooten v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 6, 108 S. W. 651. "McDonald v. State (Fla.), 47 So. 485. "People v. Wilkinson, 60 Hun (N. Y.) 582, 14 N. Y. S. 827; Keating v. People, 160 Ill. 480, 43 N. E. 724; Commonwealth v. Montgomery, II production. A failure to produce the bank notes, though a circumstance which the jury may consider as favoring the prisoner's innocence, does not render parol evidence of their value incompetent. If they are produced, it is not necessary to call the officers of the bank to prove them genuine. 48 § 297. Brands on cattle.-That cattle are branded with the brand of the prosecuting witness is some evidence of his ownership.** The state may prove that an unrecorded brand was used for years by the party claiming ownership." A diagram of a brand has been received, together with the hide of the stolen steer, where they were properly identified." Testimony that the prosecuting witness made mistakes in branding his cattle is irrelevant.52 Brands duly recorded according to law must usually be proved by a copy of the record to identify stolen animals. This is prima facie proof of the ownership of the animal bearing that brand. 53 The statutes do not make brands and marks evidence of identity for they are evidence aside from statute. The effect of the statutes is to render a certified copy of the record admissible in evidence. In some cases, however, the statutes provide that no brand except recorded brands shall be evidence of the ownership of cattle.55 A witness who has seen the animal alleged to have been stolen may describe any marks which he may have observed. A witness 47 People v. Holbrook, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 90, 93; Milne's Case, 2 East C. L. 602; State v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218, 238; Commonwealth v. Messinger, I Binn. (Pa.) 273, 275, 278, 2 Am. Dec. 441; Williams v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 523, 31 S. W. 405, 406; McGinnis v. State, 24 Ind. 500, 506, 507. 49 Moore v. Commonwealth, 2 Leigh (Va.) 701, 706. State v. Wolfley, 75 Kan. 406, 89 Pac. 1046, 93 Pac. 337; People v. Romero (Cal. App., 1910), 107 Pac. 709. 56 'Territory v. Meredith (N. Mex.), 1118; Sapp v. State (Tex. Cr. App. 91 Pac. 731. 1903), 77 S. W. 456. But proof of the 1 People v. Hutchings, 8 Cal. App. brand to show ownership is not indis 550, 97 Pac. 325. pensable unless it is the only evidence. Wolf v. State, 4 Tex. App. 332. may always be permitted to state that it is difficult to identify cattle, because of the similarity of marks on them."7 § 298. Evidence of venue and of the value of money or property.The burden of proving the venue as laid, and beyond a reasonable doubt,58 is upon the state, though, if the state shall omit to prove the venue specifically, the jury may infer it from all the evidence on both sides.59 An allegation of larceny in one county is supported by evidence of a taking in another, and a transportation into the county where the venue is laid. The property taken must be proved to have some value, 1 though the value alleged, not being usually a part of the corpus delicti, need not be proved unless proof of value is necessary to fix the grade of the offense.62 61 60 Direct evidence of the precise value of the property stolen is not required. The value of the stolen property is always largely a matter of opinion. The opinion of a witness as to the value, where value is material, is not of necessity conclusive on the jury. They may disregard the opinion of the witness if they think he has not testified honestly and fairly. The jury may infer that the stolen property has value from evidence of its character and use, G7 V. 67 Lue Commonwealth (Ky. 1889), 15 S. W. 664. The ears and dewlaps of a cow have been allowed to be exhibited, to identify the animal and to show that the brand had been mutilated. State v. Crow, 107 Mo. 341, 350, 17 S. W. 745. And compare Mizell v. State, 38 Fla. 20, 20 So. 769. In some instances, it is provided by the statutes that in a prosecution for stealing a horse the ownership of which is uncertain or unknown, the property shall be held to be owned by the state. Contradictory evidence as to whether the horse is or is not branded leaves the ownership uncertain within the statute. State v. Eddy, 46 Wash. 494, 90 Pac. 641. Harsdorf v. State (Tex. App.), 18 S. W. 415; Moye v. State, 65 Ga. 754, 755; Thockmorton v. Common 63 V. Dewitt, ΙΟ 60 Commonwealth 61 Powell v. State, 88 Ga. 32, 33, 13 S. E. 829; Parker v. State, III Aia. 72, 20 So. 641; Commonwealth v. McKenney, 9 Gray (Mass.) 114; Benjamin v. State, 105 Ga. 830, 31 S. E. 739. 62 Commonwealth v. Riggs, 14 Gray (Mass.) 376, 77 Am. Dec. 333; Vandegrift v. State, 151 Ala. 105, 43 So. 852; Herd v. United States, 13 Okla. 512, 75 Pac. 291. 03 Commonwealth v. McKenney, 9 Gray (Mass.) 114, 116; Whalen v. and a non-expert witness may always testify to the value of the property." 64 The courts will notice judicially the meaning of words used to designate the circulating medium, its value, and that of all moneys, foreign or domestic, whose value is established by law.65 Evidence, therefore, that the property consisted of bank notes or any description of money will always sustain an inference that it was of some value. Securities, as stock certificates, whose real value is not proved, will be presumed to have a nominal value."7 68 Expert evidence will be received to prove the value of stocks. bonds and other securities, if the expert has bought or sold the securities in question, and for that reason is competent. It will be presumed that gold coin alleged to have been stolen was of its face value.69 Where evidence of value is relevant to determine the grade of the offense, the accused may show that the value of the property was such that he should not be convicted of grand larceny. Usually the market value 70 at the time and place of the theft is the only proper evidence." Evidence of value at the time of the trial is competent unless it appears that the value at the time of the trial differed from that at the time of the theft.** Commonwealth, 90 Va. 544, 19 S. E. 182; State v. Faulk (S. Dak. 1908), 116 N. W. 72. State v. Finch, 70 Iowa 316, 317, 30 N. W. 578, 59 Am. 443; Moss v. State, 40 So. 340, 146 Ala. 686, not reported in full; Echols v. State, 41 So. 298, 147 Ala. 700, not reported in full; State v. Montgomery, 17 S. Dak. 500, 97 N. W. 716; Vandegrift v. State, 43 So. 852, 151 Ala. 105; Lewis v. State (Ala., 1909), 51 So. 308. Underhill on Ev., $ 237; McDonald v. State, 2 Ga. App. 633, 58 S. E. 1067. Nelson v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. 205, 32 S. W. 900; McDowell v. State, 74 Miss. 373, 20 So. 864; Vincent v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 120, 126; Bagley v. State, 3 Tex. App. 163, 169; Duvall v. State, 63 Ala. 12, 15; Mc |