Summary: Section 12 of Chapter 219 from New Hampshire Revised Statutes of 1843 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the statutes states what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it.
Section 12 of Chapter 219 from New Hampshire Revised Statutes of 1843 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the statutes states what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it.
Summary: These Portsmouth, New Hampshire ordinances provide licensing, inspection, and penalty provisions for milk, slaughterhouses, butchers and restaurants.
These Portsmouth, New Hampshire ordinances provide licensing, inspection, and penalty provisions for milk, slaughterhouses, butchers and restaurants.
Summary: The purpose of Moultonborough, New Hampshire's Leash Law is to keep all dogs under their owners' control in order to ensure against injury to persons, damages to property, or the creation of a nuisance. It is therefore unlawful to permit any dog to run at large in the town of Moultonborough. Anyone who violates this ordinance will be punished by a fine of $25 or more.
The purpose of Moultonborough, New Hampshire's Leash Law is to keep all dogs under their owners' control in order to ensure against injury to persons, damages to property, or the creation of a nuisance. It is therefore unlawful to permit any dog to run at large in the town of Moultonborough. Anyone who violates this ordinance will be punished by a fine of $25 or more.
Summary: The Defedant was convicted of the charge of cruelty to animals for the beating of his own horse. The Defendant appealed this descision to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire on two grounds. First, the lower court failed to instructe the jury that intoxication was a defense to the charge. Second, the lower court instructed the jury that the beating of an animal for training may at some point become malicious and illegal under that statute. The Court held the lower court was not in error and affirmed the decision.
The Defedant was convicted of the charge of cruelty to animals for the beating of his own horse. The Defendant appealed this descision to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire on two grounds. First, the lower court failed to instructe the jury that intoxication was a defense to the charge. Second, the lower court instructed the jury that the beating of an animal for training may at some point become malicious and illegal under that statute. The Court held the lower court was not in error and affirmed the decision.
Summary: In this New Hampshire case, a bicyclist brought suit against a dog owner under the state's strict liability statute for injuries he sustained when he fell from his bike after the owners' dog ran toward him. The jury awarded him $190,000 at trial. On appeal, this court found that the bicyclist's allegations were sufficient to sustain the jury's finding even though there was no evidence that the dog actually bit the plaintiff or made any physical contact. The Court held that there is nothing in the plain language of RSA 466:19 that would limit the statute's application actual bites or other direct physical contact. Instead, the statute makes dog owners strictly liable to “[a]ny person to whom ... damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him.” RSA 466:19.
In this New Hampshire case, a bicyclist brought suit against a dog owner under the state's strict liability statute for injuries he sustained when he fell from his bike after the owners' dog ran toward him. The jury awarded him $190,000 at trial. On appeal, this court found that the bicyclist's allegations were sufficient to sustain the jury's finding even though there was no evidence that the dog actually bit the plaintiff or made any physical contact. The Court held that there is nothing in the plain language of RSA 466:19 that would limit the statute's application actual bites or other direct physical contact. Instead, the statute makes dog owners strictly liable to “[a]ny person to whom ... damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him.” RSA 466:19.
Summary: Plaintiff horse owner appealed from the orders of the Merrimack County Superior Court (New Hampshire), which dismissed his action for veterinarian malpractice for failure to designate an expert medical witness to prove that the owner's horse was permanently injured, and that defendant veterinarians' negligence caused such injury. On appeal, the court agreed that no medical expert testimony was necessary to determine whether a veterinarian was negligent in operating on the wrong animal. However, the court held that expert testimony was necessary to assist jurors in this case on the issues of causation and injury, and generally as to the standards of veterinary care.
Plaintiff horse owner appealed from the orders of the Merrimack County Superior Court (New Hampshire), which dismissed his action for veterinarian malpractice for failure to designate an expert medical witness to prove that the owner's horse was permanently injured, and that defendant veterinarians' negligence caused such injury. On appeal, the court agreed that no medical expert testimony was necessary to determine whether a veterinarian was negligent in operating on the wrong animal. However, the court held that expert testimony was necessary to assist jurors in this case on the issues of causation and injury, and generally as to the standards of veterinary care.
Summary: In this New Hampshire case, defendant animal control officer killed plaintiff’s dog believing that it was in pursuit of a deer. Defendant claimed immunity pursuant to a state statute. The Court reversed and remanded for a determination of damages for the plaintiff. The Court went on to state that the purpose of the statute was not to authorize defendant’s killing of plaintiff’s dog when the dog was no longer pursuing the deer.
In this New Hampshire case, defendant animal control officer killed plaintiff’s dog believing that it was in pursuit of a deer. Defendant claimed immunity pursuant to a state statute. The Court reversed and remanded for a determination of damages for the plaintiff. The Court went on to state that the purpose of the statute was not to authorize defendant’s killing of plaintiff’s dog when the dog was no longer pursuing the deer.
Summary: A New Hampshire husband and wife owned their dog jointly when they divorced. The husband planned to take care of the dog while the wife relocated. Instead, he gave the dog away to a friend with a young son. The court held that the wife’s replevin action was not available against the donee of a cotenant.
Summary: A finder of a lost dog did not become the "keeper" of the dog when he tied it up and summoned the owner to retrieve it. The finder was therefore entitled to sue the owner for damage caused by the dog.
A finder of a lost dog did not become the "keeper" of the dog when he tied it up and summoned the owner to retrieve it. The finder was therefore entitled to sue the owner for damage caused by the dog.
Summary: Under these New Hampshire regulations, a permit to possess wildlife shall not be required for any person to possess wildlife designated as non-controlled (species such as aquarium fish, amphibians, reptiles except for alligators, crocodiles, and venomous species, many pet birds, small pet mammals like gerbils and hamsters, and certain ungulates). However, no person shall be issued a permit to possess wildlife that has been designated as prohibited. These prohibited species include, among others, zebra mussels, non-indigenous crayfish, walking catfish, and the white amur. A person must possess a permit to possess any live wildlife, or their hybrids, designated as controlled. Table 800.2 lists the controlled species which include many wild turtles and salamanders, alligators, crocodiles, badgers, bears, cougars, coyotes, elephants, kangaroos, big cats, and large primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. Any person who has legally acquired and possesses wildlife under a valid permit in 1992, and continuously since, and such wildlife is now designated as prohibited or controlled, shall be issued a permit to possess such wildlife.
Under these New Hampshire regulations, a permit to possess wildlife shall not be required for any person to possess wildlife designated as non-controlled (species such as aquarium fish, amphibians, reptiles except for alligators, crocodiles, and venomous species, many pet birds, small pet mammals like gerbils and hamsters, and certain ungulates). However, no person shall be issued a permit to possess wildlife that has been designated as prohibited. These prohibited species include, among others, zebra mussels, non-indigenous crayfish, walking catfish, and the white amur. A person must possess a permit to possess any live wildlife, or their hybrids, designated as controlled. Table 800.2 lists the controlled species which include many wild turtles and salamanders, alligators, crocodiles, badgers, bears, cougars, coyotes, elephants, kangaroos, big cats, and large primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. Any person who has legally acquired and possesses wildlife under a valid permit in 1992, and continuously since, and such wildlife is now designated as prohibited or controlled, shall be issued a permit to possess such wildlife.
