for twenty four hours a day in the life i think a week this could have been done in the spirit or enter over my objection evidence was made from the recording device not unlike when i use my office there was no one and may or may not have heard the tape would it have been within him as this question to have found against your client that brings this i think to the woods we are here and we filed this lawsuit initially in jefferson county circuit court because my clients have the right to be able to do things on their property that the rest of us take for granted they want to be in the set out on their back porch and drink a cup of coffee or have some folks over for entertainment they want to do yard work and gardening they want to be able to leave their windows open during pleasant nights and they can do all that now but the difference between us and my clients is that they have to do it with constant barking dogs in the back yard and this testimony which i'll get into here after a while suggests a lot of those things they can no longer do because of that and as larry dobbs one of the players testified at trial he only goes stanley the drug judge in this matter was presented with extensive testimony and evidence showing that the defendant's dogs are a nuisance that should be abated the trial good was in the best position to observe the numerous witnesses mr sharp raised the issue of bias on the part of some of our witnesses and that's fine you can allege that but judge family was in the position as the trier of fact to make those conclusions and to to look at those alleged biases that mr sharp mentioned on cross examination those if there is a date that your client is isolated as to when the problem began to make reference to ten years there wasn't a problem two thousand and seven it began is that your position is that since two thousand and seven it's been there was still lived there for nine years he played plain in the tree that's true of her and i would simply stated and as my client stated in their testimony that they tried to put up with him after a while they just decided they couldn't do that anymore but all of them did testify and frances stops and in addition to larry i was testified the parking was a problem they want but the barking started right away and as the evidence is shown in the case it was around two thousand and seven i think friends with the buff he testified he can hear them in when he's out in his yard as well and he also testified that when he is present it has been present at the office home or at wigan so that he can hear the dog barking there action which it's important to point out in the the case law intent is not simply to destroy his put his dogs out there or cause since it's more a question of forsee ability which is pointed out in the bloomingdale case which we cite and also  i mean does he have to buy two square miles of wheel state to head the business not necessarily or are i think he needs to shrink his dog business to where it's not a nuisance on his neighbors whether he either he live out in the middle of nowhere  where he can have as many dollars he wants and nobody is going to be concerned about them but as the facts are in this case he's got people two hundred fifty yards in order miles away so we believe the only thing and testimony was somebody else could eloquent and as the woods case tells us which we cite in our brief the court has to do a balancing test basically the gravity of the harm against the plaintiffs versus the utility of the defendant's business and its location and we believe income from there and there were some substantial numbers but on cross examination i asked him now i'm looking at these figures here sir and you know for example in two thousand a night can't remember the number but you had x number of dollars your income does that take into account your expenses for your for your operation he said no and then he told me what it was you know losing think about fifteen thousand dollars a year and in the previous years it was not much different i don't believe so basically he's  testified during his case in chief that he and his wife own a trucking company they ride together in the truck leave periods of time and that he makes over two hundred thousand dollars approxim stronger review is whether there's a manifest use of that discretion we think once your office will see the record and see the evidence there any evidence presented by anyone to the effect of what is a reasonable number of dogs to have in that type of neighborhood there was not no specific numbers were  wiggins ever have is fifty or sixty is that right i believe testifying and i may be wrong here i'd have to consult the record your honor it would be but just to give an educated guess i believe when he brought his daughters to the property he started with this seems like a drastic reduction from the lowest number before was fifty down to six and we recognize a rigid it is a drastic reduction but what we think the evidence is there that we presented that we cited numerous places in the record in our brief where foundations laid for these recordings the recording specifically replayed during direct examination of larry dobson transfer stops as they made before things themselves and you will see when you review the record we establish foundation by their testimonies of what they heard on those recordings fairly accurately represented what they heard the property at that time also larry guns testif great detail as to where he took these reforms how he operated the recorder how he put a time stamp timestamp into this digital recorder and also chain of custody as soon as the reporters were finished they were delivered to me  attorney and subsequently in discovery they were destroyed was mr sharp statement a fair statement that you took twenty hours of recordings and cherry picked your best five minutes to play to the court and i would it's all you can say i'm not taking an alternative view of this if the court finds that it was erroneous that these tapes were these recordings for me were introduced into evidence we believe it was harmless error because if you look at the record of the extent of evidence other of the side as far as it would go and make the dogs sound pretty loud if i wanted to but i'm not saying that was done but and mr sharp also made the point that a microphone had been put in the recorder and concerns on the record i'd like to quote what he said if i could and it's on page five seventy nine he says i understand that there may be issues just evolving things of that nature and because of that i think the court will place the appropriate amount of weight on that evidence so the judge is basically saying i  understand those issues and they do go to weight and i'm going to consider that as as i keep repeating here today we've got plenty of other evidence to look at that would support the ruling that he gave this case