A statute provides that a person found drunk in charge of a carriage may be arrested without a warrant.
A man was arrested without a warrant when he was found drunk in charge of a bicycle. Although under its plain meaning, a bicycle is not a carriage, the court trying the case found the man guilty.
Which statutory rule of interpretation did the court most likely apply?
A statute provides that a person found drunk in charge of a carriage may be arrested without a warrant.
A man was arrested without a warrant when he was found drunk in charge of a bicycle. Although under its plain meaning, a bicycle is not a carriage, the court trying the case found the man guilty.
Which statutory rule of interpretation did the court most likely apply?
The court most likely applied the mischief rule in finding the man guilty.
B) A court applying the mischief rule of interpretation determines what mischief the statute in question was set out to remedy and interprets the statute in a way that would best achieve that result. If the court convicted the man, it would be because the court found the statute was intended to keep drunk people off of moving vehicles.
(A) is incorrect because the 'golden rule' is used when using the ordinary meaning of words, leading to absurd results. No absurd result would arise if the word 'carriage' were interpreted to exclude a bicycle.
(C) is incorrect because, under the literal rule, a court applies the dictionary meaning of a word. The dictionary meaning of the word 'carriage' would not include a bicycle.
(D) This is incorrect because, under the purposive approach, a court uses extraneous material from the pre-enactment phase of legislation to try to discern the meaning of the words used in the statute. We have no mention of the use of such material in our facts, so this approach cannot be used.
(E) is incorrect because there is no such approach - the Latin phrase here means 'second body of law.'