Tom Gardner wrote in
:

On 27/09/13 12:32, Baz wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote in
:

On 26/09/13 20:07, Christina Websell wrote:

the fact remains that it is recognised in law that you are able to
train and control a dog and are responsible for what it does, but
not a cat.

There was the old AP Herbert "Misleading Case" where a neighbour
sued because snails were being thrown over the fence into his
garden and were damaging his prize vegetables.

The case depended on the concept that unless legislation
specifically states otherwise, animals are classed as either
"tame and domesticated" or "wild and ferocious". Which would
be the right classification for snails?



Well, wild, as they are wild,

So nobody has, or is assumed to have, any control over
them - and hence there's no problem with them being
displaced. After all, they could easily have wandered
over there on their own and no complaint could have
been made.

and ferocious because they are ferocious to
plants. I would think that is obvious.

It is obvious but irrelevant in law.

I think that as a point of law that the "thrower" could be seen to
criminaly damage propety that does not belong to him. His intent is
to throw an object, with the intent of damaging property not beloning
to him.
That is criminal damage.

OK, so he very gently deposited them on the
other side of the fence. No criminal damage
resulted from that deposition. (ho ho)

But of course AP Herbert, a distinguished lawyer,
would have got such details right. IANAL.

Hard to prove though. However more and more people
install security cameras. As we all should.

Written in 1930, so even cameras would have
been uncommon




I think that somewhere one of us, me or you, have grasped the wrong end
of the stick.
Let me say that i am only interested in how the law, as a means to an
end, is aplicable today.
Some bullshit written in the 1930's is hardly apt.

Baz