State v. Kelley
Supreme Court of Vermont
Information charging the respondent with keeping an unlicensed dog and allowing it to go at large without a collar. Plea, not guilty. Trial by court, in the city court of the city of Barre, Scott, J., on an agreed statement of facts. Judgment, guilty; and sentence thereon. The respondent excepted. The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the CourtMunson, J.
The licensing of dogs is required and regulated by sections 5623 to 5628 of the Public Statutes. One of these sections provides that the owner or keeper of a licensed dog *238“shall cause it to wear a collar distinctly marked with the name of the owner or keeper.” Section 5629 provides that “a person keeping a dog contrary to the foregoing provisions” shall be fined as therein stated. The respondent has been adjudged guilty upon a complaint which charges that he did not cause his dog to wear a collar, but that said dog ran at large without a collar. The case was heard upon an agreed- statement,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. TomasiSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895
- McDerment v. TaftSupreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- State v. WardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
3Cited by5 opinions
- Howley v. KantorSupreme Court of Vermont · 1933
- Clifford v. West Hartford Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1931
- Hofer v. CarsonOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Vosburgh v. KimballSupreme Court of Vermont · 1971
- Vosburgh v. KimballSupreme Court of Vermont · 1973