ABSURDITY

In statutory construction, an “absurdity” is not only that which is physically impossible, but also that which is morally so; and that is to be regarded as morally impossible which is contrary to reason, so that it could not be imputed to a man in his right senses. State v. Hayes, 81 Mo. 574, 585. Anything which Is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of men of ordinary intelligence and discretion. Black, Interp. Laws, 104. ABUSE, v. To make excessive or improper use of a thing, or to employ it in a manner contrary to the natural or legal rules for its use; to make an extravagant or excessive use, as to abuse one’s authority. In the civil law, the borrower of a chattel which, in its nature, cannot be used without consuming it, such as wine or grain, is said to abuse the thing borrowed if he uses it. ABUSE, n. Everything which is contrary to good order established by usage. Merl. Repert. Departure from use; immoderate or improper use. Of corporate franchises. The abuse or misuse of its franchises by a corporation signifies any positive act in violation of the charter and in derogation of public right, willfully done or caused to be done; the use of rights or franchises as a pretext for wrongs and injuries to the public. Baltimore v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 3 Pittsb. R. (Pa.) 20, Fed. Cas No. 827; Erie & N. E. R. Co. v. Casey, 26 Pa. 287, 318; Railroad Commission v. Houston, etc., R, Co., 90 Tex. 340, 38 S. W. 750; People v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 513, 26 N. El 622. Of judicial discretion. This term, commonly employed to justify an interference by a higher court with the exercise of discretionary power by a lower court, implies not merely error of judgment, but perversity of will, passion, prejudice, partiality, or moral delinquency. The exercise of an honest judgment, however erroneous it may appear to be, is not an abuse of discretion. People v. New York Cent. R. Co., 29 N. Y. 418, 431; Stroup v. Raymond, 183 Pa. 279, 38 Atl. 626, 63 Am. St. Rep. 758; Day v. Donohue, 62 N. J. Law, 380, 41 Atl. 934; Citizens’ St R. Co. v. Heath, 29 Ind. App. 395, 62 N. E. 107. Where a court does not exercise a discretion in the sense of being discreet, circumspect, prudent, and exercising cautious judgment, it is an abuse of discretion. Murray v. Buell, 74 Wis. 14, 41 N. W. 1010; Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1, 16 Pac. 345. Of a female child. An injury to the genital organs in an attempt at carnal knowledge, falling short of actual penetration. Dawkins v. State, 58 Ala. 376, 29 Am. Rep. 754. But, according to other authorities, “abuse” is here equivalent to ravishment or rape. Palin v. State, 38 Neb. 862, 57 N. W. 743; Commonwealth v. Roosnell, 143 Mass. 32, 8 N. E. 747; Chambers v. State, 46 Neb. 447, 64 N. W. 1078. Of distress. The using an animal or chattel distrained, which makes the distrainer liable as for a -conversion. ‘ Of process. There is said to be an abuse of process when an adversary, through the