Words

Words for the most part do not represent distinct thoughts; only the parts into which a thouglit or conception has been, or may be, divided by an analytic process. 2 Words get their point and meaning almost entirely from the time, place, circumstances, and intent with which they are used.' The same word may have different meanings even in the same sentence.* In ordinary writings any words may be used which express the intention of the parties: the words ought to subserve the intention. Words are to be taken effectively, according to the subject-matter, and so that the purpose may not fail; are to be taken the more strongly against the party who proposes the phraseology; such as are of general import are to be construed with reference to the subject-matter, and will be controlled by specific or technical terms; words of an art are to be understood as in the art or trade. In cases of doubt, written control printed words. It is often necessary to ascertain whether a word has acquired a special meaning, as applied to the subject-matter of a contract, or whether it is used with a restricted signification by authors or jurists or those conversant with the business to which the contract relates. It is not always safe to adopt the m^re etymological meaning, or such as lexicographers give." Words are to be taken in their most usual and known signification; technical terms, according to the interpretation of the learned in each art, trade, or science. • The courts take notice of the meaning and force of common words, and also of technical words where the meaning is well settled by usage, and, when necessary, they define them to the jury.' It has been a source of perplexity to those who attempt to reduce discoveries to scientific classification, that old terms, with well-defined meanings, are applied to things wholly new, as " road " in railroad, g. v. To 1 Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, vol. I, pp. 15-16, note. ' [Lieber, Hermen, 3 ed., 14, n. 1 Dillard v. State, 41 Ga. 280 (1870). « Minot V. Harris, 132 Mass. 533 (1882). • Dole V. New England Mut. Mar. Ins. Co., 6 Allen, 386-87 (1863), Bigelow, C. J. »Pea Patch Island Case, 1 Wall. Jr., cxlv (1848); People V. May, 3 Mich. 605 (1855); 1 Col. 369. 'State V. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 38 (1886), cases. The lower court explained " au Eesthetic," " chloroform," avoid this result, modern science is enriched with compounds of Greek and Latin words.' In addition to particular words or terms, see generally Art, 3; Coksteuctiok; Defamation; Etymology; ExpRESsio; Foiiio; Gender; General, 6; Grammar; Inferior; Noscitur; Number; Provocation; Res, Ut res; Term, 1; t Jsns, Utile; Writikg. Compare Ybr-