A statute required persons operating places of public refreshment, resort, and entertainment to have a licence to run the establishment.
A man owned a cafe and argued he did not need a licence because the cafe was not a place of entertainment. After considering the context of the word entertainment, the court held that it did not mean musical entertainment but rather the reception and accommodation of people, so the defendant was guilty.
Which rule of language did the court most likely use to come to this judgement?
A statute required persons operating places of public refreshment, resort, and entertainment to have a licence to run the establishment.
A man owned a cafe and argued he did not need a licence because the cafe was not a place of entertainment. After considering the context of the word entertainment, the court held that it did not mean musical entertainment but rather the reception and accommodation of people, so the defendant was guilty.
Which rule of language did the court most likely use to come to this judgement?
Noscitur a sociis.
B) This phrase stands for the doctrine that the company interprets a word it keeps. That is, when interpreting a statute, courts consider the words in the same section as the word in dispute - in other words, courts consider the context.
(A) is incorrect because under this legal maxim, if one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned in a statute, the things not mentioned are excluded.
(C) is incorrect because in pari materia is a rule of language that considers other statutes on the same subject to interpret the statute in question. Since we have no other statute here to help, this rule is not helpful here.
(D) is incorrect. Ejusdem generis is not helpful here as it is used to interpret the meaning of a general word when more specific words follow it. Refreshment, resort, and entertainment all seem a bit general and so do not help here.
(E) is incorrect because Corpus juris secondum means 'second body of law' and is not a rule of interpretation.