The Pierson vs. Post case [1] has become an important benchmark in the field of AI and Law for computational models of argumentation. In [2], Bench-Capon used Pierson vs. Post to motivate the use of values and value preferences in his theory-construction account of legal argument. And in a more a recent paper by Atkinson, Bench-Capon and McBurney [3], it was used to illustrate a formalization of an argumentation scheme for practical reasoning. Here we offer yet another reconstruction of Pierson vs. Post, using our Carneades Argumentation Framework, a formal mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation based on Walton's theory of argumentation [4], and compare it to this prior work. Carneades, named in honor of the Greek skeptic philosopher who emphasized the importance of plausible reasoning, applies proof standards [5] to determine the defensibility of arguments and the acceptability of statements on an issue-by-issue basis.