New Hampshire

NH - Exotic Pets - Chapter 466-A. Wolf Hybrids

Summary: This section of laws comprises New Hampshire's wolf-dog hybrid act. Under the law, no person shall sell or resell, offer for sale or resale, or release or cause to be released a wolf hybrid in the state of New Hampshire. A person may temporarily import a wolf hybrid provided that he or she shows proof of spaying or neutering and has accurate vaccination records. Each wolf hybrid shall be under the physical control of the owner or confined in an enclosure or structure sufficient to prohibit escape. Any person in violation of this chapter or any rule adopted under this chapter shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

NH - Moultonbourough - An Ordinance Relative to Dog Control Regulation

Summary:

The purpose of Moultonborough, New Hampshire's Leash Law is to keep all dogs under their owners' control in order to ensure against injury to persons, damages to property, or the creation of a nuisance. It is therefore unlawful to permit any dog to run at large in the town of Moultonborough. Anyone who violates this ordinance will be punished by a fine of $25 or more.

State v. Avery

Summary:

The Defedant was convicted of the charge of cruelty to animals for the beating of his own horse.  The Defendant appealed this descision to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire on two grounds.  First, the lower court failed to instructe the jury that intoxication was a defense to the charge.  Second, the lower court instructed the jury that the beating of an animal for training may at some point become malicious and illegal under that statute.  The Court held the lower court was not in error and affirmed the decision.

Bohan v. Ritzo

Summary:

In this New Hampshire case, a bicyclist brought suit against a dog owner under the state's strict liability statute for injuries he sustained when he fell from his bike after the owners' dog ran toward him. The jury awarded him $190,000 at trial. On appeal, this court found that the bicyclist's allegations were sufficient to sustain the jury's finding even though there was no evidence that the dog actually bit the plaintiff or made any physical contact. The Court held that there is nothing in the plain language of RSA 466:19 that would limit the statute's application actual bites or other direct physical contact. Instead, the statute makes dog owners strictly liable to “[a]ny person to whom ... damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him.” RSA 466:19.