Unformatted text preview: des not cover his behavior. Analysis The court was right to reverse the decision pertaining to Schofield. The definition of “vehicle” used in prior cases cannot be stretched to incorporate a horse within this specific case. The fact that prior cases such as People v. Szymanski, Conrad v. Dillinger, and State v. Stewart (from other states) included wagons, a team and a stage coach, in addition to the horse, allows them to be considered “vehicles.” The statute did not cover Schofield’s behavior and thus was not applicable. The Court elucidates that they are examining the law and its language in order to deliver due process. They were fair in their interpretation of the law and realized that the definition of vehicle as it appeared with common language and previous cases did not encompass a horse. The court was very careful to examine the details of the law’s language....
View Full Document
- Fall '07
- Law, carriage, Schofield, Blowers Facts Schofield