animal ownership question

[furbabymom]

from NC... details: august 2005 friend leaves dog with mom and i due to his job and fear of the dog's health/safety at being on the road and unstable lifestyle (truckdriver from Ca). later states he wants to give us the dog , for various prenamed reasons. this is done via email and phone calls. Mom and i discuss issue, and accept the gift, even building expensive fence to contain safely, and care for all needs never asking for any funds. i had begun regular food and exercise schedual to bring better health in dog and care from some issues. person begins stating regularly when he can find akc papers he will send them so i can breed to get him a male puppy someday. (more demands this of me) this person shows up (from accross country) in may 2006 demanding the dog back. i crybaby but give the dog up along with all foods and belongings i could pack. i never called or harrassed this person, yet three hours later he calls saying he knows it is of God that the dog is really mine (i HAD cared for the dog alot!!) and brings him back again, i clearly state this time is for good, does he understand? yes he says, and promises to send akc papers within ten days. (he gives two more boxes of items he had brought for dog from puppy years showing intentions as he'd brought this from Ca. all the way here to NC) june2006 he shows up with cops saying mom and i stole the dog. they listen to mom and i seperately , tell us he agreed to our statements that he gave us the dog twice, and tell us we don't have to give up dog, that he will have to file civil papers to continue his claims.
july2006 we recieve court date. aug26th 2006 we appear before magistrate, he agrees with our testimony and magistrate dismisses case on basis he never proved anything (no contracts etc were involved in this) magistrate clearly says indian giving is not lawful, but rather childish. person has filed an appeal, demanding jury trial to be sept 24 2006 (we got paperwork yesterday.) my question: what NC law(s) is it that clearly states a gift is a gift in this case? i know this magistrate was lawful, he stated he wasn't into warm and mushy, lol, no matter how good of care i have taken of the dog. i know he went according to law. i sincerely would like help finding which laws he used in his honorable judgement, so i can look them up and bring copy to upcoming jury trial.
thanks for any help..really!

 

[JETX]

my question: what NC law(s) is it that clearly states a gift is a gift in this case?

There is no such statute... as it is covered in what is called 'common law'.

common law
n. the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom and usage, which began to develop over a thousand years before the founding of the United States. The best of the pre-Saxon compendiums of the common law was reportedly written by a woman, Queen Martia, wife of a king of a small English kingdom. Together with a book on the "law of the monarchy" by a Duke of Cornwall, Queen Martia's work was translated into the emerging English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.). When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. By the 14th century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow. It did not include the so-called law of equity (chancery), which came from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts. The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible. Today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states except Louisiana, which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In some states the principles of Common Law are so basic they are applied without reference to statute.

 

[furbabymom]

Thank you for fast reply JETX.
and posting the common law info.

any advise??

this person already has lied to magistrate about reason he didbn't come back for dog sooner. but that's neither here nor there, when one considers that i GAVE the dog back once. (and he admitted to my testimony as truth to magistrate)
i am aware akc is NOT proof of ownership, just proof of pedigree. so i am not worried in that accord.
am i worrying over nothing here?

so 'common law' is valid that a person needs to keep thier word?
written contract or not?

(or are we teaching society via courts that ones word is whatever whenever, and swearing to tell the truth is nada based on 'feelings'?)