From: vkochend@nyx.cs.du.edu (vance kochenderfer)
Subject: Legal Lemurs
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 23:23:40 GMT

                                   
Someone asked if there was any law prohibiting keeping a lemur as a pet.                                   
A short search of LEXIS/NEXIS turned up the following court cases...
                                   
                                   
                                   ANNOTATION
              SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE THAT POSSESSOR OF CONTROLLED
             SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN COCAINE, HEROIN, OR MARIJUANA HAD
              INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE IT, SO AS TO VIOLATE 21 USCS @
                                   841(a)(1)

                            Martin J. McMahon, J.D.

                               80 A.L.R. Fed. 507

[*7]   Methaqualone

   In the following cases, involving possession of methaqualone, courts held or 
implied that the evidence of intent to distribute was sufficient to constitute a
violation of 21 USCS @ 841(a)(1).
                                                                                
   In United States v Buettner-Janusch (1980, SD NY) 500 F Supp 1285, affd on
other grounds (CA2 NY) 646 F2d 759, cert den 454 US 830, 70 L Ed 2d 107, 102 S
Ct 126--a prosecution for possession of methaqualone with intent to distribute
in violation of 21 USCS @ 841(a)(1), based on six plastic jars containing
methaqualone in various stages of purification, which were seized from the
defendant's laboratory during a government search--the court held the evidence
more than sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict and denied the defendant's
motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial.  The court noted that the
defendant and his coconspirators, who allegedly were involved in  lemur 
research, had purchased enough raw material to make sufficient methaqualone to
drug all the  lemurs  in the United States and keep them in a perpetual state of
euphoria and that the evidence also included a note written by the defendant
concerning a step in the manufacturing of LSD and included sodium barbitol and
precursors of LSD seized from the defendant's basement storage area.  The court,
in considering the propriety of certain remarks made in the prosecutor's
summation, stated that no reasonable juror could have put much stock in the
defendant's contention that he was manufacturing drugs not for street use, but
solely in connection with his highly scientific  lemur  research, which
allegedly necessitated a higher quality drug than concededly available from
licensed manufacturing chemists required to adhere to purity standards of the
United States pharmacopoeia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  No. A038932

           Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District,
                                  Division Two

           215 Cal. App. 3d 1648; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1230; 264 Cal.
                    Rptr. 311; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P12,376

                               November 29, 1989

PRIOR HISTORY:   [**1]    
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 801418, Daniel M.
Hanlon, Judge.

DISPOSITION: The order holding Cooper potentially liable for the Phillipses'
injuries as successor in interest to the corporate liabilities of Miller is
reversed.  The order exonerating Nestle is affirmed.

OPINION:   [*1651]    This case involves questions of corporate successor
liability.  Appellant Cooper Laboratories, Inc. (Cooper) appeals from an order
of the San Francisco Superior Court holding it potentially responsible, as
successor in interest, for all damages allegedly incurred by Sandra and Michael 
Phillips (Phillipses) as the result of Sandra's exposure to diethylstilbestrol
(DES) in utero.  The Phillips cross-appeal from the court's order holding that
another corporation, the Nestle- LeMur  Company, Inc. (Nestle),   [**2]   was
not responsible, as successor in interest, for the damages they allegedly
sustained.  We reverse the trial court's order holding Cooper potentially
liable for the Phillipses' injuries.  We affirm the trial court's order
exonerating Nestle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                STATE v. THOMAS

                                   No. 28369

                   Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2

                           318 Mo. 605; 300 S.W. 823

                                        
                               December 12, 1927

OPINION:   [**824]

   [*607]   HIGBEE, C. The defendant was charged by information filed in the
circuit court of Clay county, with having, on April 23, 1926, stolen certain
domestic fowls, the personal property of Irene C. Groves, to wit, 17 grown
chickens in the nighttime from the messuage of said Irene C. Groves.  The
information was filed on May 30, 1926, and was based on section 3314, R. S.
1919.  The venue was changed to Carroll county where the cause was tried to a
jury on April 15, 1927, resulting in a verdict finding the defendant guilty and 
assessing his punishment at 4 years in the penitentiary.  Defendant appealed.

   Mrs. Groves owned and lived on a farm in Clay county, Mo.  She spent the
night of April 22, 1926, with a neighbor, returning to her home about daylight
on April 23.  John Sevage lived across the road a little north of Mrs. Groves
and about 250 yards distant from her house.  It had been raining, and there was 
a bad mudhole in the public road in front of Sevage's house.  He was aroused
about 2 a. m. that night by the roaring of an automobile engine and, looking
out, saw a Ford touring car mired in the mudhole.  He saw the car, running
without lights, drive into Mrs. Groves' premises and in a few minutes heard
chickens squawking.  He telephoned his neighbor, Oscar Johnson, who lived a half
mile south of him, and asked him to call the sheriff.  Sevage took his shotgun
and went to meet Johnson.  They heard this car roaring and found it stuck again 
in the mudhole.  The defendant, Robert Thomas, and  Lemur  Portwood   [*608]
were in the car.  Sevage presented his gun and ordered them out of the car.
Johnson had brought his revolver, and together they overpowered and arrested
Thomas and Portwood after they had threatened to kill their captors.  After
about 15 minutes Thomas and Portwood begged Sevage and Johnson to let them go.
Thomas said it was the first time he had ever stolen any chickens and whined
that it would be a disgrace to his family.  He said he would take the chickens
back to Mrs. Groves if they would let him go and say nothing about it.  He said:

   'You may send me to the Penitentiary, but I'll get you some time.'

   In a little while six other neighbors arrived on the scene.  Portwood made
his escape.

   On the rear seat of the car was a chicken coop with 14 live and 3 dead hens
in it, Rhode Island Reds and Buff Leghorns.  Mrs. Groves was the only one in the
neighborhood who kept those breeds of chickens.  After she returned to her house
in the morning, Sevage, Johnson, and the others showed her the chickens in the
car.  They traced the tracks made by Thomas' car from the mudhole into Mrs.
Groves' premises, by the chicken yard north of her house, back to the mudhole.
There were no other car tracks.  They found the same kind of chicken feathers
where the car had stopped in the back yard as they found in the car.  The door
to the chicken house was open and the chickens seemed to be frightened.  There
were footprints through the back yard to the hen house.  The chicken coop
remained in the car until Mr. Clark, the sheriff, arrived.  The car was then
driven to Mrs. Groves' house, where Clark turned the chickens loose on her front
lawn.  They ran at once around the house to the chicken yard, a distance of
about 60 yards, and mixed with the other chickens.

   Thomas told Officer Edgar Nall that he got the chickens from his aunt, Mrs
Groves.  On cross-examination of the witness, Sevage, it was developed that his 
chickens and meat had been stolen.

   Mrs. Groves testified:

   'I live a mile east of Linden, in Clay county, Mo. On April 23, 1926, I had
some Rhode Island Reds, some Buff Leghorns, some Brown Leghorns, and a few
Plymouth Rock chickens on my place.  The defendant, Robert Thomas, is my nephew.
I never gave my consent for him or  Lemur  Portwood to take any of my chickens. 
Neither of them ever had any interest in any chickens on my place.  The chickens
that were   [**825]   turned loose on my place by the sheriff on the morning of 
April 23, 1926, are still there.'

   On cross-examination:
                                                                                
   'I do not know that they were my chickens.  I did not miss any chickens.  I
did not see these chickens when they were turned loose; I was in my back pantry.
I have seen the chickens that were brought there.  I don't know whether they
were my chickens, and could not say they were mine when they were throwed into
my yard.'

   [*609]   Redirect:

   'I saw these chickens in the coop as I passed down the road.  I never paid
much attention, only I seen they were chickens the color of the chickens on my
place.  I haven't sold a chicken, and as far as I know they are still there.  I 
never did count them to see if I had lost any of them.'

Newsgroups: alt.fan.lemurs