The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-10-10

aggravated assaults and batteries, the
| law of homicide, negligent and other
| wise, the law of mansiaughter, the law
| of murder of the two degrees; and above
| all, it is clearly repugnant to the statute
and constitution which prohibits duell-
ing. Then we may ask if this high court
| is prepared to say that such statute
was ever valid. 1t is against good gov
eminent, violative of conscience, and
repugneant to the sensibilities of ciyiliza-
ton.
Contending, therefore, that fight
| between man and man" is a crime in it
self; that the bill of rights and the con-
stitution against fighting with deadly
weapons and the fundamental principles
of good government prohibits legislative
license of the crime, we respectfully ask
this court to finally and forever settle the
question to the end that Texas may be
spared the appreciation that must cling
to any doubt on the subject.
Hon. John w. Parker of Taylor closed
the argument for the plaintiff Byron,
tax collector of Williamson county.
Mr.. Parker contended that the argu-
would lead to the admission that the
mandamus should issue, which was in
consistent with the position of the de-
PENDANT.
However, that might be, the position
assumed by the governor was unsound
wherein he contended that the language
of the taxing statute would embrace and
sanction fights between man and man of
serious nature and would authorize
and protect duelling and assaults.
Mr.. Parker cited the brief of the at
torney general in opposition as contain
ing the true rule to be applied in the con-
struction of statute that is susceptible
of two interpretations as follows:
I'm interpreting a law, the main object
to be arrived at is the intention of the
lawmaking power; and the Interpretation
to be given to the language used to ex-
press the intention should be such as to
make the statute consistent with reason,
and that every interpretion that leads to
an absurdity ought to be rejected"
Under these admitted and clearly es-
tablished rules it clearly appears that
the kind of fights which the legislature
intended to license were those COM
monty known as prize fgths when pur-
sued as an occupation, otherwise if two
men should fall out and have little
fisticuff on the streets they should be
arrested for pursuing an occupation
taxed by law and made to pay the tax
$750-to. the State and county.
Reading the occupation statute as
clearly intended to apply to prize fight
ing conducted as an exhibition, the issue
in the case was whether the recent stat
ute against prize fighting was valid
law and operated to repeal the license
statute. The plaintiff contends that it
is not valid law, because embracing a
dual purpose, apparent in the caption
and in the body of the act. And relying
upon the decision of Judge Hurt in the
Clark case, counsel contended that the
case was properly brought and that the
recent statute presented no obstacle to
the plaintiffs. right of mandamus.
The. cases were submitted under an
agreement as follows:
AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL.
r. d. Byron, tax collector, ETC., VS..
r. w. Finley, comptroller, etc.
Suit pending in the spreme court of the
State of Texas, October term, A. D.,
1895. -
In the above case come now the par
ties by their attorneys and submit the
following agreement, viz:
1t is agreed that the facts stated in
the plaintiffs petition are true and that
the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
prayed for in his petition unless:
First-That part of article 5049 of the
Revised Civil Statutes of the State of
IeXaS, ADOPTED by the IWenty-f0urth
legislature of the said State at its regu-
lar session, A. D. 1895, wherein tax
is levied upon fights between man and
man was void at the date of the insti-
tuition of this suit by reason of the con-
llicting provisions of article 1905 of the
Penal Code adopted by said legislature,
or
Second-Uuless the statute passed at
the called session of said legislature en-
titled AN act to prohibit prize fighting
and pugilism and fights between men
and animals, and to provide penalties
therefor, and to repeal all laws in con-
flict Herewith, true copy of which is
hereto attached, is a valid law and oper-
ates to repeal the said part of article
5049 levying a tax on fights between
man and man as aforesaid, or
Third-Unless the said law attempt
ing to license fights between man and
man is void as being contrary to pub
lie policy.
ROBT. A. JOHN and
WEST & COCHRAN,
For Plaintiff,
NJ. NJ. CRANE, Atty. Gen. and