The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-10-24

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 upper
cuts were INDUCED in before large au-
| dience of attorneys and prominent peo-
pie interested in the case. The original
petition for a writ of certiorari was al
most lost sight of in the legal set to and
attorneys on both sides went deep into ar
gument on the merits of the case.
Mr.. Trustworthy said that prize fight
was violation of the laws against as
sault. 10 men could not light prize
! tight without doing each other bodily in
jury or harm. He cited the meeting at
Jacksonville, Fla, between Corbett and
| Mitchell and said that after two and
three-quarter rounds Mitchell was unable
to raise himself from the floor. He re-
ferred to the Lavigne-Bowen affair at
| New Orleans and said that Bowen had
been killed in the ring. He was willing
to waive the petition for temporary re-
straining order and submit the case to
| the court on it's merits. Prize fighting
was unlawful, whether or not the law of
1891, making it a felony, had passed the
legislature as required by the constitu-
| ton.
Mr.. 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-
| tionalty of the prize fight act. The
| question was not one of assault and bat
terry. The agreement under which they
would meet, if at all, in no way involved
the pugilistic championship of the world.
The original articles did so, but the re-
vised ones did not, and merely called for
Il glove contest.
Mr.. Martin read the felony act and de-
tailed the legislative course of the law to
show that it had been irregularly en-
acted. He then read from 33 Arkansas,
| II, referring to the constitutional re-
| quirements in the passing of a bill. A
| failure to record the names of those yot-
| ing in the negative was held to be dis
| regard of the constitutional requirements
and the bill did not become law.
| No agreement existed between the pc
| titioner and any one in Arkansas. A
| meeting was contemplated, but 1t was
not to be prize fight. The testimony
in the case would show that no injury
| would occur in contest such as the one
proposed Indeed it was not certain
that any contest would take place, even
if the courts decision were favorable
| to the petitioner He cited the decision
in the Olympic case at New Orleans i'll
which it was held that glove contests in
regularly chartered clubs were not a vlo-
ation of the prize fight act. Testimony
in the present case would show that no
injury was contemplated and could not
be called q prize fight. Mr.. Martin SAID
that he had confidence in his memory to
say that the Corbett- Mitchell fight was
not terminated by a Knockout, the
learned attorney general and the public
press to the contrary notwithstanding
Colonel Murphy said that he desired 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 warrant, he said, was a
farce on the law against prize fighting.
Judge Hemingway interrupted the at
torney with the suggestion that the war
rant had been sought on the theory that
Corbett contemplated breach of the
peace.
Colonel Murphy said that he had under
stood that the order obtains a hearing
on the merits of the case and he waived
that part of the proceedings and objected
to being interrupted. He would not, ht
said, enter into the discussion of the dis
tinction between prize fights and glove
, contests If the law against prize hght
, is held to have been irregularly passet
, so as to be void, then there is no law b!
, which Corbett can rightfully be deprived
of his liberty for agreeing to engage II
, a contest of this character.
Judge Hemingway wanted to know wh.
> Colonel Murphy did not want the court t.
pass ON the question as to whether
!, glove contest constitutes an assault.
Colonel Murphy said that If the cour
, decided such q contest constituted an as
sault and should send the case back to tn
Justice of the peace then he had nothin
to say. The question that the parties IL
terested desired passed upon was the con
stitutionality of the law of 1891. ID
| read the constitutional requirements l
{ the passing of laws and argued that tn
? | bill had not been so passed. The const
! | tuition requires that a bill shall be read
! ! length three times; on TINS point the col
e stitution was mandatory. The term "A
length" could mean nothing if it did nc
mean that the bill should be read in fu
L on three different and separate days. IN
| section of the constitution requiring tina
the yeas and nays shall be called and rt
corded on the final passing of bill wa
f mandatory. When n bill is amended
! | becomes different bill and by the col
= stitutiOn is required to be read at iengt
e on three different occasions. The bill q
9 | it appeared on the statute book had nc
been SO enacted. He argued that tn
f house. by its recession from its amend
A ments, changed the entire aspect of tn
r law, and that the house had never vote
/ on the bill as it finally became law,
e the felony act of 1891 was not passed q
r required by the constitution it was nu
t and void and the subsequent amendator
V law of 1893 was also void.
S Colonel Murphy said that the Stat
could not enjoin a man from violating
law. Iniunctions such as was sought b
the State in this case were unknown
4 criminal practice.
Y Colonel Murphy apologized to the coul
and the attorneys for his little display
: temper.
Judge Hemingway said that thei
were three propositions in the case:
First-The State held that Chancellt
Leatherman had acted without jurisdi
tion in the case. \ person had been a
| rested and taken before u justice of I'll
peace on a charge of conspiring to violat
Laws upon the statute books Of Arkal
sas. whereupon Chancellor Leatherma
had taken the case out of the hands {
the justice of the peace and had release
him on a writ of habeas corpus on tn
| ground that the law against prize hghtin
was unconstitutional.
Second-The State maintained that tn
law of 1891 was passed as required by til
constitution, and that it is today the la'
of the State.
Third-That the chancellor had erre