Punctuation

The division of a written or printed instrument by means of points, such as the comma, semicolon, and the like. Courts of law in construing statutes and deeds must read them with such punctuation as will give effect to the whole; 4 Term 65. In construing deeds, it is said that no regard is to be had to punctuation, and although stops are sometimes used, they are not to be regarded in the construction of the instrument; 3 Washb. R. P. 397.

See O’Brien v. Brice, 21 W. Va. 707.

Punctuation is not allowed to throw light on printed statutes in England; 24 Beav. 330; nor to interfere with the natural and usual meaning of the language employed; O’Brien v. Brice, 21 W. Va. 704. In an act of parliament there are no such things as brackets, any more than there are such things as stops; 24 Q. B. D. 478. Punctuation may be considered in determining the meaning of a contract, when it is doubtful; Com. v. Kelley, 177 Mass. 221, 58 N. E. 691. Where a comma after a word in a statute, if any force were attached to it, would give the section containing it broader scope than it would otherwise have, it was held that that circumstance should not have a controlling influence.

— Punctuation is no part of the statute; Hammock v. Trust Co., 105 U. S. 77, 2G L. Ed. 1111; in construing statutes, courts will disregard punctuation;

— or, if need be, repunctuate, to render the true meaning of the statute; Hamilton v. The R. B. Hamilton, 16 Ohio St. 432, approved in Hammock v. Trust Co., 105 U. S. 77, 26 L. Ed. 1111; President &c. v. Ruse, 14 C. L. R. (Australia) 224; State v. Brodigan, 34 Nev. 486, 125 Pac. 699; In re Gyger’s Estate, 65 Pa. 311; Cushing v. Worrick, 9 Gray (Mass.) 385.

It may shed some light on the construction of statutes, but the court will read them with such stops as will give effect to the whole; Crawford v. Burke, 195