Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-03-15
fsPEcIAL TELEGRAM TO THE DISPATCH.

New YORK, March 14-"This is the
case" sand President Day to a small coterie
of friends previous to tie legal contest of the
METROPOLITAN Exhibition Company against
William Ewing in the United States Court
to-day. The popular National League mag
nate seemed TO be more deeply interested in
the suit against his old catcher than in the
recent case against Ward, and it is claimed
that he places the most implicit confidence
in the arrangement and presentation of the
case against Ewing, and that his favorite
player will be compelled to play with the
New York League club or no other. If the de-
cision should be the reverse, President Day will
undoubtedly be greatly disappointed man. 1t
is fact however, that the relations between
the New York clubs President and his former
Captain apparently as friendly as ever and
when the two met to-day in the corridor op-
posite the court room their greetings were ex-
tremely cordial
EwING'S REMINDER.
"How funny it is" said Buck ''that two such
old friends should now be engaged in scrap
ping match"
1t was close to i o'clock when the case was
called for argument and although Joseph
Choate, who was to make the closing address
for the complainant was absent, George F.
Duysters, OF counsel for the New York club,
stated he would proceed with his side of the
case. sir. Duysters at the outset described the
the business of baseball and compared it to
theatrical companies who depended on success
through the skill of the players. The only
material difference, he claimed, was that one
could do business alone and flourish. Baseball
players we're the same as actors to their man
ayers. and if skilled player like Ewing were to
drop out, the Metropolitan Exhibition Com
pany would suffer greatly.
PRINCIPALS IN THE CASE.
This action is not between the Metropolitan
Exhibition Company and the defendant, but
between the New York club and the defendant.
his is the name in general use. Mr.. Duysters
hen reviewed the different clauses in the con-
tract, taking almost the same ground he did in
the Ward case. Judge Wallace inquired
whether there was anything in the contract re-
quirIng notice to be sent to the player that he
was to be retained. The reply was there was
not. Mr.. Duysters closed his argument by
citing number of decisions in support of his
motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge
Bacon, in behalf of the defendant prefaced
the technical part of his argument in denial
OF the complainant's statement that Ewing did
not give notice that he intended to leave the
National League until the 18th of February.
'The fact is" Mr.. Bacon said Ewing told the
agent of the New York club last October that
he did not intend to play with them: and.
furthermore, in November the Brotherhood
had meeting and publicly announced break
away from the National League"
JUDGE BACoN's CONTENTION.
Judge Bacon contended that Ewing was a
resident of New York when he signed con-
tract and was resident of the same city when
he was sued. The defendant was not aware
that the name of the Metropolitan Exhibition
Company and New York club was the same
fO ma Ea
tract under the name which is given In the GER
tificate. Judge Bacon dwelt considerably upon
the reserve clause and also upon Ewing's affi-
davit, in which the latter says the contract
calls for not more than 5000 Tor his services
yet he was actually paid $1,000 This was in
direct violation of the constitution. Judge
Bacon quoted the Pittsburg case in 49, also
the Ward case, and asked that an injunction be
denied.
Mr.. Choate, in his reply to Judge Bacon, said
that the facts in this case were substantially
the same as those in the Ward case. He con-
tended that there were certain points however
that were not fully discussed in the Supreme
Court, but Judge O'Brien decided that his only
reason for denying preliminary injunction
was that the case could be fully heard before
the playing season opened.
MR.. cHoATE's POINT.
TT is claimed" said he, 'that we were de-
MED the right to pay more than the contract
called for $1,000. But Ewing and Ward were
paid more, it is true. but not as gratuity but
upon certain conditions made with Mr. Day
and il was made simultaneously with the sign
ing Of their contracts"
Judge Bacon-Where are your afidavits to
that effect? Mr.. Choate said that his side did
not have any. but Judge Bacon replied that be
had and handed them up to the Court. Mr.
Choate continued and said that the fact that
they had right to ray the extra salary couldn't
be disputed.
Judge Bacon-I don't know about that.
Mr.. Cboate then spoke about the hardships
and mutuality of the contracts going over the
same grounds as in the Ward case. he claimed
that renewals in contracts were very common
particularly in real estate cases. Judge Bacon
closed the argument of the case in a few re-
marks and the papers were handed up to Judge
Wallace who reserved his decision.