Show Para
Passage-II (Q. Nos. 196 to 200)
On October 13, 1945, a citizen of Durham, North Carolina was brought before Judge Wilson of Traffic Court for parking his car on a restricted street right in front of a sign forbidding parking. But instead of pleading guilty, the defendant protested that he was not extracting ore from underneath the street. This was not a fictitious reply, for when the sign was brought as an evidence, the defendant triumphantly pointed out that it read “No stoping” and “stoping” he was able to prove with the help of an unabridged dictionary [p. 2. 845 Webster’s New International] means “extracting ore from a stope or loosely underground”.
“Your honour,” said the defendant, “I am a law-abiding citizen. When I saw the sign I thought whatever you do, don’t extract any ore — it’s against the law. I did not do any stoping — and I move the case be dismissed.” The judge understood the inconvenience caused by a mere drop of the single letter and that the defendant had lived up to the letter of the law. Therefore the case was dismissed.
On October 13, 1945, a citizen of Durham, North Carolina was brought before Judge Wilson of Traffic Court for parking his car on a restricted street right in front of a sign forbidding parking. But instead of pleading guilty, the defendant protested that he was not extracting ore from underneath the street. This was not a fictitious reply, for when the sign was brought as an evidence, the defendant triumphantly pointed out that it read “No stoping” and “stoping” he was able to prove with the help of an unabridged dictionary [p. 2. 845 Webster’s New International] means “extracting ore from a stope or loosely underground”.
“Your honour,” said the defendant, “I am a law-abiding citizen. When I saw the sign I thought whatever you do, don’t extract any ore — it’s against the law. I did not do any stoping — and I move the case be dismissed.” The judge understood the inconvenience caused by a mere drop of the single letter and that the defendant had lived up to the letter of the law. Therefore the case was dismissed.
Go to Question: