The K-Zone: Evan v Cross (1938)

Although it is technically a criminal matter, and not a constitutional one, this case ([1938] KB 694) is in this section because of its demonstration of the principle of EjusdemGeneris in statutory interpretation. Mr Evan was convicted of driving his car in such a way as to cross the white line dividing lanes, in supposed contravention of the Road Traffic Act (1930), S.48(8) of which says that drivers should obey ``...signals, warning sign posts, direction posts, signs, or other devices for the guidance or direction of persons using roads''. The substance of his appeal -- which was successful -- was that white lines were not explicitly mentioned along with the other items to be obeyed, and were not ejudem generis (of the same class) with them. This meant that white lines could not be deemed to be included in ``other deivces for the guidance...'' although, clearly, common sense would suggest that they should be. However, the judgement of the court did suggest that the outcome might have been different had there been no other motoring offence with which errant line-crosser could be charged. ``Driving without due caution'', for example, was available in such cases.

CaseLaw