Need help with sentance structure/meaning
 

In the following codified ordinance, I need to know if the "regulate and restrain" pertain to running at large, such that the sentance could read regulate the running at large, restrain the running at large, or prohibit the running at large. Verses regulate farm animals, restrain farm animals and /or prohibit running at large of farm animals.

Except as otherwise provided in section 955.221 of the Revised Code regarding dogs, a municipal corporation may regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large, within the municipal corporation, of cattle, horses, swine, sheep, goats, geese, chickens, or other fowl or animals, impound and hold the fowl or animals, and, on notice to the owners, authorize the sale of the fowl or animals for the penalty imposed by any ordinance, and the cost and expenses of the proceedings.

Your interpretation is what I get from it. The MC may regulate, restrain or prohibit the running at large of the animals within it's limits. If you're trying to determine whether farm animals are allowed in the MC, I don't think this pertains. I think this only refers to their management inside MC limits.

That said, it can also be read that MC's can regulate or restrain these animals but I would think there would be a companion piece of code that would directly address the posession of such critters...

Ambrose Bierce: Justice= in accord with the will of the judge having jurisdiction.

Although it is somewhat ambiguous, I would say that they can "regulate the running at large, restrain the running at large, or prohibit the running at large".

They clearly didn't want to be too wordy (while they were already being too wordy).

The "restrain" part wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Retired (fortunately) Attorney

Are your chickens running afowl?

Exactly.... and if the judge happens to be elected by the voters...it's in accord with the will of his supporters. ;)

Regulate the running at large: "The animals can run at large only certain time of day."

Restrain the running at large: "The animals can run at large only within a certain area."

Prohibit the running at large: "The animals must stay penned up all the time."

Yes it pertains to my fowl. I have a meeting with the judge on Monday and trhying to determine if the city has the authority to regulate farm animals on private property.

I'm fairly certain that I'm not going to like the outcome from trial, but I kinda was hoping that my liability is limited to losing the chickens not a fine and court costs.

Oh, forgot to mention this is Ohio Revised Code not the city ordinance. The city ordinance allows chickens, but only if you own 2 acres.

good luck.

:uhoh:.....:uhoh2:.....:bowrofl:

As far as the English language is concerned, "at large" can be a shared adverb phrase for all "regulate," "restrain," and "pertain." Or "at large" could pertain to only "running." This is just one of the many reasons English is a ***** to learn as a second language.

The judge in the case, however, will most likely interpret the sentence whichever way generates revenue for the state.

It seems clear to me that it only pertains to animals "running at large" which is to say "not on your property". If they are on your property then they are not "at large." If you are in the city then it sounds like you need 2 acres.

From on line legal dictionary:

At Large : "Free from control or restraint"

Looks to me like that statute merely grants the authority to municipalities to do whatever they see fit when it comes to farm animals. I'd be a lot more concerned with the actual city ordinances. These codes have become pretty standard in most cities in the country, when population densities reach a certain point, farm animals become a health hazard to humans if they are kept on suburban-sized lots, most of the city ordinances out there are just boilerplate stuff they get from public health organizations. In Texas they are only allowed in urban areas in neighborhoods where all the lots are two acres or more, and they can't border directly with surburan neighborhoods. And there is a darned good reason: brucellosis ("undulant fever"). It can be transferred from live stock to humans. It's the one word I know that can make a roomful of tough cattlemen quake in fear, since the common cure is to slaughter every cow and bull, or goat, etc (even dogs can catch it) within fifty square miles of it. You can't win a court case against that.

I think the code reads to 1)"Regulate",- they can regulate animals. 2)Restrain- they put on a nose ring, halter, or lease; they can put in a cage or pen, they can put in a fenced in area. 3) Prohibit the running at large- means they can say you must keep your animals on your property, and if they feel that the animals can hurt themselves running "at large" on your property they can demand you to do your own "restraining" of their choosing.

Later in the ordinance they claim to be able to confiscate and sell your animals if you owe them $ from breaking ordinances, plus court costs..