A new logic / by Charles Mercier.

  • Mercier, Charles Arthur, 1852-1919.
Date:
1912
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: A new logic / by Charles Mercier. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    403/458 (page 371)
    apply to it, and leaves outstanding, as the only alternative, that ‘a small’ qualifies ‘cottage.’ The fallacy is not always as transparent as it is in the case just cited. ‘ A lady’s sound, quiet hack ’ is grammatically as correct as ‘ a lady’s hack, sound and quiet,’ but it does not mean the same. The first means ‘ a sound quiet hack, belonging to a lady, the second means ‘ a sound quiet hack, suitable for a lady to ride.’ Nowhere do we find the fallacy of Amphiboly so rampant as in Acts of Parliament, despite the labours of Parliamentary draughts- men in interpreting the intentions of legislators. ‘ Habitual drunkard means a person who, not being amenable to any jurisdiction in lunacy, is, notwithstanding, by reason of habitual intemperate drinking of intoxicating liquor, at times dangerous to himself or others or incapable of managing himself and his affairs.’ What is the effect, on the meaning of the rest of the definition, of the insertion of the words ‘ not being amenable to any jurisdiction in lunacy ’ ? Does it or does it not mean that the drunkard must be partially insane, or must be bordering on lunacy,—not insane enough to be certified as a lunatic, but yet to some extent disordered in mind ? High authorities are divided on the question. How does ‘ by reason of the intemperate drinking of intoxi- cating liquor ’ affect the meaning of ‘ at times dangerous, &c.’ ? Does it mean that any person who becomes dangerous, &c., when he is drunk, and is also in the habit of intemperate drinking of intoxicating liquor, may be regarded as an habitual drunkard ; or does it mean that, however dangerous, &c., a man may be when he is drunk, and however habitual may be his intemperate drinking, he is not an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Act, if his dangerousness can be ascribed to the single state of drunkenness in which he then was, and need not of necessity have been due to his long-continued drinking ? The question had to be taken to the Court of Appeal for decision. * At times.’ Plow much of the following clause does this affect ? Does it qualify ‘ dangerous to himself and others ’ only, or does its effect extend to the subsequent clause, ‘ incapable of managing himself and his affairs ’ ? Again, authorities are divided in opinion. ‘ Incapable of managing himself and his affairs.’ Must he, in B B 2