Definition
In legal contexts, "afternoon" carries an intentional ambiguity that courts and commentators have consistently flagged. The word has two recognized senses:
1. The period from noon to midnight — encompassing what ordinary usage would call evening and night as well.
2. The earlier portion of that time, from noon until evening — closer to the common understanding of the word.
Which sense applies in any given legal instrument, statute, or charge depends entirely on context and subject matter. The word cannot be read in isolation; the surrounding language controls.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The part of the day from noon or lunchtime until sunset, evening, or suppertime or approximately 6 p.m.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The part of the day which follows noon, between noon and evening.
The common understanding — in both modern and historical usage — treats afternoon as ending at or around evening. The legal problem is that courts and statutory interpreters have recognized a broader sense in which "afternoon" can extend all the way to midnight, absorbing what ordinary speakers would call evening and night. A statute or pleading using "afternoon" without clarifying context may therefore cover a span of time far longer than a lay reader would assume.
---
Common Confusion
"Afternoon" is easily confused with "evening" and "night" in legal instruments, and the confusion runs in both directions. A pleading or ordinance that says "eleven in the afternoon" would strike most readers as odd — yet Anderson's notes that such a charge is not defective for failing to specify that eleven o'clock at night was meant, because context can supply the meaning. The risk is highest in criminal complaints, licensing ordinances, curfew provisions, and time-of-performance clauses, where the difference between a narrower reading (noon to evening) and a broader reading (noon to midnight) may determine whether a violation occurred or a deadline was met.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working with older statutes, ordinances, or case reports should treat "afternoon" as a legally unstable time marker. The historical sources are consistent on one point: the word's meaning is context-dependent and cannot be assumed. This matters in several practical ways.
In historical sources, "afternoon" may be used where a modern drafter would write "p.m." — and the shift from noon-to-evening to noon-to-midnight is not always signaled. A licensing restriction, closing-time ordinance, or contract performance deadline that uses "afternoon" without a specific hour may be broader than its face suggests.
The term surfaces most often in three research contexts: (1) criminal pleadings and ordinance violations involving time-of-day restrictions, where the sufficiency of the charge may turn on whether the stated hour falls within the applicable meaning of "afternoon"; (2) contract interpretation, where time-of-performance clauses use "afternoon" to specify a delivery or payment window; and (3) statutory construction questions, where courts must determine what a legislature meant by the word in a regulatory context.
Anderson's entry cross-references DAY, which is the more heavily developed concept in historical legal dictionaries and carries its own set of ambiguities. Researchers who encounter "afternoon" in a primary source should immediately check how the same instrument defines or uses "day," "evening," and "night," as those usages will often illuminate which sense of "afternoon" was intended.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries are in close agreement. Black's (both editions) and Bouvier's all identify the same two senses and reach the same conclusion: meaning must be resolved by context. The formulation is nearly identical across sources, each tracing the point to the same English authority, Reg. v. Knapp, 2 El. & Bl. 451. This unanimity reflects the fact that the legal problem with "afternoon" was identified early and treated as settled doctrine — the word is ambiguous, and context governs.
Anderson's takes a more practical approach, illustrating the principle through a pleading scenario involving a saloon closing ordinance. This is useful for researchers because it shows how courts applied the doctrine in municipal regulation contexts: a charge alleging that a saloon was kept open past "eleven in the afternoon" was not dismissed as defective, because context made the intended meaning sufficiently clear.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the metric or 24-hour framework that has largely superseded "afternoon" as a legal time marker in modern drafting. Contemporary statutes and contracts typically specify exact hours with a.m./p.m. designations, making the older doctrine less frequently litigated. The historical entries remain relevant, however, when construing pre-twentieth-century instruments.
---
Jurisdictional Note
No jurisdiction has formally defined "afternoon" by statute in a general way. The interpretive rule — that context determines which of the two senses applies — appears to have been treated as a common-law principle of construction applicable across jurisdictions. Researchers should check whether a specific regulatory scheme (alcohol licensing, for example) supplies a statutory definition that displaces the common-law ambiguity.
---