Let$$s break down the statute and analyze the cases of two defendants using methods of statutory interpretation.

Question $1$: Analysis of Two Defendants

Defendant $1$: Harry Potter $($Riding a Skateboard$)$

Statutory Language Analysis:

Sec. $2$: $$No vehicles of any kind shall be allowed in any town park.$$

Sec. $3$: Defines $$vehicle$$ as $$any mechanism for conveying a person from one place to another,$$ including specific examples like automobiles, trucks, all$-$terrain vehicles, motorcycles, and motor scooters.

Interpretation:

Plain Meaning Rule: The term $$vehicle$$ is broadly defined to include any mechanism for conveying a person. A skateboard fits this definition as it is a mechanism that conveys a person.

Ejusdem Generis: This rule suggests that when a general term follows a list of specific items, the general term should be interpreted in light of the specific items. Here, the specific items listed $($automobiles$,$ trucks, etc.$)$ are all motorized. However, the statute explicitly states $$any mechanism,$$ which broadens the scope beyond motorized vehicles.

Legislative Intent: The intent behind the statute is to enhance safety by banning vehicles in parks. A skateboard, while not motorized, can still pose safety risks.

Conclusion: The judge should rule that Harry Potter$$s skateboard falls under the definition of a vehicle as per the statute. Therefore, his arrest is valid.

Defendant $2$: Mrs$.$ Weasley $($Pushing a Baby Jogging Stroller$)$

Statutory Language Analysis:

Sec. $2$: $$No vehicles of any kind shall be allowed in any town park.$$

Sec. $3$: Defines $$vehicle$$ as $$any mechanism for conveying a person from one place to another,$$ with specific examples.

Interpretation:

Plain Meaning Rule: A baby jogging stroller is a mechanism for conveying a person $($the baby$)$ from one place to another.

Ejusdem Generis: The specific items listed are all motorized, but the statute includes $$any mechanism,$$ which could encompass non$-$motorized mechanisms like strollers.

Legislative Intent: The intent is to prevent safety issues caused by vehicles. A stroller, especially when pushed, is less likely to cause safety issues compared to motorized vehicles or even skateboards.

Conclusion: The judge should rule that Mrs$.$ Weasley$$s baby jogging stroller does not fall under the intended scope of the statute. The stroller is being pushed, not ridden, and does not pose the same safety risks. Therefore, her arrest is not valid.

Question $2$: Considering Past Precedent

Assume there is a past precedent from $1985$ where a judge ruled that a non$-$motorized scooter was not considered a vehicle under the statute.

Application of Precedent:

Stare Decisis: The principle of adhering to precedent would suggest that non$-$motorized mechanisms like skateboards and strollers should also not be considered vehicles under the statute.

Consistency: Applying the precedent consistently would mean ruling in favor of Harry Potter and Mrs$.$ Weasley, as their mechanisms are non$-$motorized and similar to the non$-$motorized scooter in the precedent case.

Conclusion with Precedent: If the judge follows the past precedent, both Harry Potter and Mrs$.$ Weasley should be found not guilty, as their mechanisms $($skateboard and stroller$)$ would not be considered vehicles under the statute.