Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-10-23
xynyv - avn -
ENUkNE EhhREN
-
.0rh6tt Sill kht0rn SIl-

Little Rock. Ark, Oct, 22.-The second
round In the great battle of legal heavy
weights began at 10 o'clock this morn
ing in the supreme court chamber and
for two hours legal leads. counters
and cross counters, feints, ducks and
upercuts were INDUCED IN before a
large audience Of attorneys and promi-
nent people interested In the case The
original petition for a writ Of certirarl
was almost lost sight of In the legal set
to and attorneys on both sides went
deep into argument on the merits Of
the case
Mr.. Trustworthy said that a prize
fight was violation OF the laws
against assault. Two men could not
fight prize fight without doing Injury
or harm. He cited the meeting at
jacksonville, Fla, between Corbett and
Mitchell and said that after two and
three-quarter hours Mitchell was I'M
able to raise himself from the floor. He
referred to the Lavlngne-Bowen fight
at New Orleans and said that Bowen
had been killed in the ring.
He was willing to waive the petition
for temporary restraining order and
submit the case to the court on Its
merits. Prize lighting was unlawful
whether or not the law of 1881 making
1t felony had passed the legislature
as required by the constitution.
MIR. Martin. for the club, maintained
that the question involved was not as
to whether prize fighting was right or
wrong, but one involving the constitu-
tionality Of the prize fight act. He
| read the legislative record Of the pas
| sage of that act. The question was not
| one of assault and battery. The agree
III.
at ALL in no way involved the pugi-
| llstic championship of the world. The
| original articles did so, but the revised
ones did not and merely called for a
! glove contest.
Mr.. Martin read the second article OF
| the felony act and detailed the legisln-
| tive course OF the law to show that II
had been irregularly enacted.
! No agreement existed between the
petitioner and anyone in Arkansas. A
meeting was contemplated but II was
not to be a prize fight. The testimony
In the case would show that no injury
would occur in a contest such as the
proposed one. Indeed. 1t was not GER
tain that any contest would take place,
even II the courts decision were favor
able to the petitioner He cited the
decision In the Olympic case at New
Orleans in which 1t was held that
glove contests In regularly chartered
clubs were not violations of the prize
fight act Testimony in the present
case would show that no injury was
contemplated and could not be called
prize fight.
Colonel Murphy said that he de-
sired to devote his remarks to the
legal aspect of the case. He took up
the transcript and read the warrant on
which Corbett was arrested. The war
rant. he said was sought on the theory
that there was valid law on the
| OF hnnlru upraipaf hpiyp nRhtlnu
Judge Hemingway Interrupted the
attorney with the suggestion that the
warrant had been sought on the theory
that Corbett contemplated breach of
the peace.
Colonel Murphy said that he had I'M
derstood that In order to obtain a
speedy hearing on the merits of the
case the state had waived that part
OF the proceedings and objected to
being interrupted. He woulS not, he
said. enter into the discussion of the
distinction between prize fights and
glove contests II the law against
prize fights is held to have been irregu-
larly passed so as to be void, then there
is no law by which Corbett can right
fully be deprived of his liberty for
agreeing to engage In a contest OF this
| character.
Judge Hemingway said that there
were there propositions In the case.
/. The state held that Chancellor
Leatherman had acted without juris-
dictlon In the case. A person had been
arrested and taken before Justice OF
the peace on a charge of conspiring to
violate laws upon the statute books
of Arkansas, whereupon Chancellor
Leatherman had taken the case out Of
the hands OF the Justice Of the peace
and had released him ON writ of
habeas corpus on the ground that the
law against prize fighting was uncon-
stitutional
2. The state maintained that the law
OF 1891 was passed as required by the
constitution and that 1t is today the
law of the state.
3. That the chancellor had erred In
entertaining the petition for writ OF
habeas corpus. The case had been
brought before the Justice under a
statute giving him power to intervene
where a crime was about TO be COM
mltted and the chancellor had no
authority to pass upon the case under
the prize fight act,
Colonel Murphy interrupted and ask
ed n he desired the court TO pass upop
the chancellors' jurisdiction.
Judge Hemingway was willing for
the court to decide all questions In
VOWED. Colonel Murphy stated that II
the state took that position they had
No right 10 bring the case to the SUI
preme court on writ Of certiorari.
Judge Hemingway wanted the court
to pass upon the constitutionallty OF
the prize fight law, and that II that was
held to be unconstitutional he wanted
the law against assault to be applied
and the case sent back to the Justice of
the peace for ajudieation. He admitted