LAW & ORDER – Keeping Dogs without licenses at Redcar-curious point of law
Accreditation The Redcar and Saltburn-by-the-Sea Gazette 22/06/1877.
KEEPING DOGS WITHOUT LICENSES AT REDCAR-
CURIOUS POINT OF LAW
At the Guisborough Petty Sessions, on Tuesday, (19/06), several persons residing at Redcar, were summoned by Mr. Cullingworth, supervisor of excise, for keeping dogs without licenses, and the usual penalty of 25s. was imposed..
In the case of Frederick Freeman, who resides at Kirkleatham, a curious though somewhat important point was raised by the defendant. He stated that as soon as the officer called upon him, he at once obtained a licence, and consequently he held that he was not liable. He referred to cases of a similar character which had been disposed of in other courts, where the magistrates held this view. Mr Duff Ayrton expressed his opinion that it was no offence if a person, who had no licence when the diction was made, immediately procured one. In this case the defendant had taken out a certificate immediately on the officer reminding him of his default. In law it was a maxim that there was no such thing as a fraction of a day, and this was generally acted upon. Mr. Cullingworth stated that there was a similar case pending in the Superior Courts, and the bench thought it was only fair to allow the matter to stand over until the decision was ascertained.
Accreditation The Redcar and Saltburn-by-the-Sea Gazette 20/07/1877.
KEEPING A DOG WITHOUT A LICENCE
On Tuesday (17/07), at the Guisborough Petty Sessions (before the Earl of Zetland, and the Rev. Canon Yeoman); Jas. Murray, of Turner Street, Coatham, was summoned by Mr. Cullingworth, supervisor of Excise, for keeping a dog without a license. The case originally came before the court, a month ago, when the defendant set up a plea that insomuch as he took out a license the same day, the officer called at his house, he was not liable. He produced a report of a case in which the magistrates had held this view, and as there was a case of a similar character pending, an adjournment was decided upon. P.C. Chambers now said that on 20th April last he went to the defendant’s house and ask to see a license for a dog which they kept, when his wife stated there was plenty of time yet. After leaving defendant’s house he went to the Post Office, where a register of licenses is kept, and found that no license had been granted to him up to that time. In answer to the defendant, the officer said that he did not offer to sure the license. Defendant said the case was adjourned a month ago, when the magistrates decided there was no case against him. There was a case pending in a superior court of a similar character, and it was adjourned in order to see what decision would be arrived at. He had a licence at ten o’clock in the morning, and the officer did not come to his house until dinner time. Mr. Cullingworth, said he believed that defendant did take out a license the same day, after the visit of the officer, but that did not cure the offence committed in the morning.
The officer said he asked to see the license after seeing the dog, but it was not produced. The Magistrates held that notwithstanding defendant had taken out a license after the officer called, he was liable, and the usual penalty of 25s was imposed.
November 27, 2014 Law & Order