Criminal penalty for the owner of the dog barking at night. Supreme Court ends in a quarrel between a husband and wife, owners of two shepherd dogs, and their neighbors house whose sleep was prevented by continuous barking. The decisive factor in the 'nail' animals and owners was the testimony of man involved in the morning delivery of bread, which confirmed, in line with the plaintiffs that the pair of dogs barked constantly. Unnecessary burden on the defense of the spouses had warned the Court that the baker brought the freshly baked bread at 4 am causing an almost inevitable reaction in two animals guard, which had been shown the docile nature.
The thesis of the judges
not enough, the prosecutor had then claimed two more strings to its bow: the presence of many stray dogs in the area, circumstances which made it difficult to identify the "guilty", and the fact that complaints about disorderly conduct night came from one family (also the owner of a dog year), while the configuration of the offense would require that the disorder was caused an unspecified number of people. Topics that are not shared by the judges of the Supreme Court, however, who say that to trigger the offense of "disturbing the rest of the occupations of the people" is not the actual discomfort of an undetermined number of people but "the suitability of the fact" to create potentially more people. The owners were therefore condemned because they have not stopped, despite the many protests neighbors, their dogs barking at night also. However, difficult to know with certainty whether the witness was not right to disturb the sleep of the dogs.
(Patrizia Maciocchi)
0 comments:
Post a Comment