Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-01-22
ESPECIAL TELEGRAM To Il D1sPArcH.l

ESPECIAL TELEGRAM To TIE DIsPATcH.1
NEW YORK, January 21.-The brief Of
the Metropolitan Exhibition Co., on motion
for temporary injunction against John
Ward, restraining him from playing with any
other club than the New York club was
presented to the court by George F. Duy-
sters, counsel for the plaintiff, on Monday.
Some of the more important points in brief
are as follows: 1t is contended that para
graph Is OF the contract, exhibit A, upon
which the action is based, is clear and un-
ambiguous upon the face of it. The English
language is incapable of expressing an idea
more clearly than the words The said right and
privilege is hereby accorded" WHAT'S accord
ed? The right and privilege of reservation for
the season next ensuing. If, as claimed by defen-
dant the reservation in the contract means no
more than it did prior to the formation OF the
contract, what did the player have to accord
aud what right to insist upon conditions pre-
cedent?
RIGHT OF RESERVATION
It is also commended that the right of reserva-
ton needs no explanation. To reserve means
to hold, TO keep for future use. If the word
reserve requires explanation as a technical
term, Its history given in the affidavit Of John
NJ. Ward sufficiently elucidates it. Prior to
November, 1887, it meant to hold, to keep for
future use as a right agreed to between clubs.
1t is also commended that all reference to the
national agreement, League constitution or any
other documents must be excluded in the con-
sideration of this contract by reason of para
graph Is Of the contract itself. The fifth para
graph of the contract confers upon the party of
che fret parf in fbz mnCt Solemn and gDpc1fiC
manner, the right ito enjoin said party of the
second part from performing services for any
other person or organization during the period
of service herein contracted for" A clear
indication Of bad faith on the part Of the de-
PENDANT is that when notified of his reservation
on the sd of October, 1889, he did not nor has he
since notified the plaintiff that he should refuse
to abide by his agreement. Plaintiff denied its
information from rumor and newspaper report.
WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE.
That plaintiff would be irreparably damaged
by the loss of the services of defendant is
proven be, ond question by the affidavit of
Wendell Goodwin. Again, defendant claims
there are innumerable other players whom
plaintiff can secure in defendants place. What,
then, prevents the Brooklyns, limited, from Sc
curing these players, and thus prevent its utter
ruin. Goodwin, according to his affidavit. ap-
DEdT6 - udNS CullCEu ldNCl AhNCA NO1oA y
with the plaintiff to leave plaintiffs service
(otherwise the enjoining of these players would
not affect his enterpriseG which is actlonable
at common law. The defendant assumes the
position that this contract lis hard and without
equity" Divested of verbiage, what is that?
What is this contract in its utmost extension?
An agreement on the part of the defendant to
render services as a ball player during seven
months of the year 1890 in consideration of a
salary of $3.50 lawful money of the United
States, 5000 as per supplemental contract and
co < - nc mar lnnnfrQRT TnTrnnnnnd nv o
PENDANT. There is no want Of mutually in this
contract and that amount of money for seven
months work for a ball player can hardly be
considered unfair.
CLAIM OF UNFAIRNESS.
Il would be strange, indeed, il the Court
could find injustice, harshness, or want of
mutually in a contract drawn by the defen-
dant himself after the fullest consultation with
counsel. and possessing las the defendant evil
IDENTIFY did, the fullest knowledge of the bust
ness to which it relates.
Point sixth in defendants brief is completely
answered in the second affidavit of Mr.. Day,
citing defendants letter to j. B. Billings, man.
ager of the Boston club. corroborating the
statements made by Mr. Day. The transfer
was not to a rival organization, but to a club
within the League which would play with
plaintiff, and even that was consented to by the
President Of plaintiff under threat of defen-
dant that he would not return from Europe.
The statement contained in defendants brief
that well-establIshed practice of players leav-
ing National agreement clubs, although re-
served By them, and going to clubs and ASSOcia-
tions outside of the National agreement is
scarcely warranted by the facts, as defendant
does not cite a single instance of such an &C.
currence since the adoption in 1857 of the
present form of contract, the first one, adj
mittedly, In which the player accorded the
right of reservation.
CUTS BOTH WAYS.
IRON the afidavits of defendants it would
seem that the denial of a preliminary injunc-
ton upon technical grounds, which would not
apply to a final injunction, ought to be as fatal
to him as the plaintiff. If a preliminary in
junction would utterly ruin the corporations
referred to by Wendell Goodwin how much
more damaging would it be to them, a final in
junction after all their contracts are filed,
larger sums of money expended and many limo.
cent stockholders had further subscribed to
their stock. The insistance of the defendant |
in opposing a preliminary injunction can only
be explained by the suppositlOn that he intends |
to delay the trial of this action until after the
playing season Of 1870, until plaintiff had been
irrepaTably damaged. The force of res judicata
claimed by the defendant for the case cited.
'the Allegheny Baseball Club versus Bennett"
is not apparent upon examination. This was a
bill for specific performance of an agreement
to make an agreement. The demurrer was sus-
tanned. Why it was sustained. however, can
not be determined, as no opinion was given.
The settled law of England and America au-
thorizes the granting of an injunction in this
case as follows:
THE LAW OF INJUNCTION
Where a person has entered into a contract to
render service to another of such a nature as not
to be easily replaced, and the loss to the en-
ployer would be a loss not to be compensated for
in damages, a breach, or a threatened breach, of
such contract may be restrained by Injunction.
1t is not evident that. as the defendant saws.
there is a very broad distinction between a star
actress and a star baseball player. 1t is untrue
to state, as the defendant does, that such a star
player occupies a position in which the work
to be done is precisely similar to that required
of several other men on his team. 1t is untrue /
to imply, as the defendant does, that there are
20 or 80 men in the country who could play
shortstop as well as Mr.. Ward does. A num-
Der of cases are then cited to strengthen the
position of the plaintiff in the case.