KFLCC Kingdom Law 2nd Ed.

11

ABUSE

ABSTRACT

Mo. 574, 585. Anything which Is so irration al, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the inten tion of men of ordinary intelligence and dis cretion. Black, Interp. Laws, 104. ABUSE, v. To make excessive or im proper 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 ex cessive 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, com monly employed to justify an interference by a higher court with the exercise of dis cretionary power by a lower court, implies not merely error of judgment, but perversity of will, passion, prejudice, partiality, or mor al 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 gen ital organs in an attempt at carnal knowl edge, 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 chat tel 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

ABSTRACT, n. An abstract Is a less quantity containing the virtue and force of a greater quantity. A transcript is general ly defined a copy, and is more comprehensive than an abstract. Harrison v. Mfg. Co., 10 S. C. 278, 283; Hess v. Draffen, 99 Mo. App. 580, 74 S. W. 440; Dickinson v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 7 W. Va. 390, 413; Wilhite v. Barr, 67 Mo. 284. ABSTRACT, v. To take or withdraw from. Under the National Bank Act, "abstraction" is the act of one who, being an officer of a na tional banking association, wrongfully takes or withdraws from it any of its moneys, funds, or credits, with intent to injure or defraud it or some other person or company, and, without its knowledge or consent or that of its board of directors, converts them to the use of him self or of some person or company other than the bank. It is not the same as embezzlement, larceny, or misapplication of funds. United States v. Harper (O. C.) 33 Fed. 471; United States v. Northway, 120 U. S. 327, 7 Sup. Ct. 580, 30 L. Ed. 664; United States v. Youtsey, fC. C.) 91 Fed. 864; United States v. Taintor, 28 Fed. Cas 7; United States v. Breese (D. C.) 131 Fed. 915. ABSTRACT OF A FINE, In old con veyancing. One of the parts of a fine, being an abstract of the writ of covenant, and the concord, naming the parties, the parcels of land, and the agreement. 2 Bl. Comm. 351; Shep. Touch. 3. More commonly called the "note" of the fine. See FINE; CONCOBD. A condensed history of the title to land, consisting of a synopsis or summary of the material or op erative portion of all the conveyances, of whatever kind or nature, which in any man ner affect said land, or any estate or interest therein, together with a statement of all liens, charges, or liabilities to which the same may be subject, and of which it is in any way material for purchasers to be apprised. Warv. Abst. § 2. Stevenson v. Polk, 71 Iowa, 278, 32 N. W. 340; Union Safe Deposit Co. v. Chisholm, 33 111. App. 647; Banker v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 94 (Gil. 46); Heinsen v. Damb, 117 111. 549, 7 N. E. 75; Smith v. Taylor, 82 Cal. 533, 23 Pac. 217. An abstract is a condensation, epitome, or synopsis, and therein differs from a copy or a transcript. Dickinson v. Chesapeake & O. R, Co., 7 W. Va. 390, 413. Abundans cantela non nocet. Extreme caution does no harm. 11 Coke, 66. This principle is generally applied to the construc tion of instruments in which superfluous words have been inserted more clearly to ex press the Intention. 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 rea son, so that it could not be imputed to a man in his right senses. State v. Hayes, 81 ABSTRACT OF TITLE.