Oscar or Smudge?

This is a bit sad, they're obviously both so attached to him...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...lands-15271927

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 http://www.campin.me.uk Twitter: JackCampin

"Jack Campin" wrote in message
...
This is a bit sad, they're obviously both so attached to him...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...lands-15271927

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u
k


This is why I firmly believe in microchips. Sad that they're having to go
to court.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:


"Jack Campin" wrote in message
...
This is a bit sad, they're obviously both so attached to him...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...lands-15271927

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u
k


This is why I firmly believe in microchips. Sad that they're having to go
to court.

I don't think that would help in this situation. One of them already has
documentation to prove that she "bought" the cat. (She did buy the cat, I
just think that's a weird concept.) But the other woman says that she had
the cat for a longer period of time, and in her mind, that makes her the
rightful owner. So the debate is more philosophical than technical. A case
for King Solomon.

--
Joyce

I prefer to live with Feline Sapiens, thank you very much.

On 12 Oct 2011 22:32:02 GMT, wrote:

jmcquown wrote:


"Jack Campin" wrote in message
...
This is a bit sad, they're obviously both so attached to him...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...lands-15271927

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u
k


This is why I firmly believe in microchips. Sad that they're having to go
to court.

I don't think that would help in this situation. One of them already has
documentation to prove that she "bought" the cat. (She did buy the cat, I
just think that's a weird concept.) But the other woman says that she had
the cat for a longer period of time, and in her mind, that makes her the
rightful owner. So the debate is more philosophical than technical. A case
for King Solomon.

This will get ugly. Well, it already has, but it's going to get even
worse.

Yet another reason to keep cats indoors, or in an enclosure.

Cats run away, and get lost. Often.

I never thought of a microchip as proof of ownership, but it does
establish PRIOR ownership.

English courts are run VERY differently than those in the USA.

If this happened in the USA, I would say that the original owner would
be certain to prevail, after running up a HUGE legal bill.

In Great Britain... who the hell knows.

They assume you are GUILTY, until PROVEN innocent.

That doesn't work for me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...lands-15271927
This is why I firmly believe in microchips. Sad that they're having
to go to court.
I don't think that would help in this situation. One of them already
has documentation to prove that she "bought" the cat. [...] the debate
is more philosophical than technical. A case for King Solomon.
This will get ugly. Well, it already has, but it's going to get even
worse.
I never thought of a microchip as proof of ownership, but it does
establish PRIOR ownership.
English courts are run VERY differently than those in the USA.

English law and US law are more similar to each other than either is
to Scottish law. This case is in a Scottish court.

If this happened in the USA, I would say that the original owner
would be certain to prevail, after running up a HUGE legal bill.
In Great Britain... who the hell knows.
They assume you are GUILTY, until PROVEN innocent.

No they don't. This is a civil case anyway, and "guilt" doesn't
come into it.

I've no idea what the outcome will be (except that Oscar/Smudge will
not be short of a home). Civil courts are for deciding tricky stuff.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 http://www.campin.me.uk Twitter: JackCampin

On 2011-10-12, wrote:
jmcquown wrote:


"Jack Campin" wrote in message
...
This is a bit sad, they're obviously both so attached to him...


This is why I firmly believe in microchips. Sad that they're having to go
to court.

I don't think that would help in this situation. One of them already has
documentation to prove that she "bought" the cat. (She did buy the cat, I
just think that's a weird concept.) But the other woman says that she had
the cat for a longer period of time, and in her mind, that makes her the
rightful owner. So the debate is more philosophical than technical. A case
for King Solomon.

I guess it depends on what the law is on lost property. If person A
lost a ring and person B found it, should person A have to give it back?
Substitute cat for ring and you might have your answer. Hmm. Sauron
could sue Frodo and really change the plot of The Lord of the Rings.
If a cat is a domestic animal like a cow or a horse, it is property.
The original owner would have to prove she still owned the cat (not sold
or given away, etc.). Maybe the cat finder could sue the original owner
for the cost of keeping the cat.

Bud