11-24-2010, 10:21 PM
oink, I believe that statutes can be read by non-lawyers and comprehended with respect to the black letter law.
As to the case cited, yeah, I would not give any opinion on that without reading the case for the facts it references. The language of the statute is where I got that it must be a second offense.
1) the owner failing to confine or destroy the dog,
2) further damage to person or property.
As to the case cited, yeah, I would not give any opinion on that without reading the case for the facts it references. The language of the statute is where I got that it must be a second offense.
quote:The last clause where it states it shall be lawful to destroy the dog is predicated upon two subsequent conditions:
if the owner of the dog neglects or refuses to do so, the owner of the dog, in the event of any further damage being done to the person or property of any person by the dog, in addition to paying the person injured for the damage, shall pay the costs of the trial together with the penalty imposed under section 142-12, and it shall be lawful for any other person to destroy the dog.
1) the owner failing to confine or destroy the dog,
2) further damage to person or property.