Nye v. Niblett [1908] 1 KB

Material Facts:

Three boys killed two cats with great cruelty. In Section 41 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, it was an offence to kill animals in such a manner if the animals were kept for domestic purposes. At the trial court, they were acquitted because the court did not find any evidence that the cats were kept for domestic purposes. They appealed.

Issue:

Whether or not it had to be proved that the cats were kept for domestic purposes.

Holding:

There was no need to prove that the cats were kept for domestic purposes, as the court takes judicial notice of that fact.

Ratio Decidendi:

Per Justice Darling,

I read the section as meaning that if you kill unlawfully and maliciously an animal which, though not the subject of larceny, belongs to a class of animals which, as a class, are ordinarily kept in a state of confinement or for domestic purposes, then the offence is committed, and that in such a case it is not necessary to prove who owned the particular animal so killed, or that the particular animal was ordinarily kept in confinement or for some domestic purpose. Here there was no evidence that these were cats which had become wild. They were cats which were haunting farm premises, and belonged to the class of cats which are ordinarily kept for domestic purposes. That being so, they were within the protection of the section.

Similarly, Justice Avory advanced that there was no need to prove that the cats were kept for domestic purposes because

Cats belong to a genus or class of animals that are ordinarily kept for domestic purposes. There is no doubt that that is the usual description of cats. "Domestic cats" is a well-known expression. That being so, it was not necessary to prove that the particular cats in question were at the time being kept for domestic purposes…

Principle in Case:

Courts can take judicial notice of facts that are notoriously known or common knowledge.