The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-18
He Decides That the Law Was
Violated by Fitz and
sharkey.
CANNOT sQUABBLE FOR PURSES
Principals, Seconds, Referee and Club
Officers May Be Taken Before
the Grand Jury.

Judge Sanderson yesterday morning de-
cided that Fitzsimmons, Sharkey, Wyatt
carp (who is the bodygua-d of ''Long
Green" Lawrence), the directors of the
National Athletic Club, II. /. Kowalsky,
General Barnes and all others connected
with or present at the $4,000 'glove con-
test" had violated the statute prohibiting
prize-fg and were amenable to in
dictment.
The court, therefore, could not inter-
fere in the squabble over the purse. So
the Injunction was dissolved, and the
com plant of Fitzsimmons against Shar-
key was dismissed.
General Barnes began his argument
with the asser ton that the complaint was
founded on information and belief and
was too vague to ask summary proceed
ings. The complaint also showed that
the parties had contracted to do some
thing illegal and contrary to good morals,
and it was not necessary to plead this
fact so long as it came up in the evidence.
The speaker read authorities to show that
if in the progress of the trial either by
admission or proof a fact was developed
which may render it necessary to termi-
nate a case the court may of its own
court would not listen to any claims for
services in things forbidden by law or con-
demned by public decsncy and morality.
1t was officially before the court that
there was a wide difference between a
prize-fght and glove contest before a
club. The case OF Seville against the State
was cited. In that case the losing fighter
was knocked against the rope senseless
AZ
received from the gloved fists of Seville,
those injuries being fractured brain and
various bruises on different parts of the
body. The glove contest took place before
club and was licensed by the authorities,
but the court decided that it should not
have been licensed and that it was prize
fight, an assault, and contrary to public
morals.
In the case of an athletic club in New
Orleans the court decided that whether
the contest was called a glove contest or
boxing match, it was nevertheless a
prize-hght a breach OF the peace end
contrary to good morals, and the license
of the club was rescinded.
1t was decided in another case that in a
contest for a purse, with or without
gloves, there was an intention to do an
injury and to break the pub peace. The
purpose of the contest was to stop the
opponent by knocking him senseless or
injuring him so as to prevent him from
continuing the fight.
The claim that such fights were simply
glove contests was equivalent to claim
that a contest with sharp-pointed fois
and drawing blood was harmless fencing
match.
In the case before the court Robert Fitz-
sim mons testified that the fight was for a
purse of $4,000, to be decided in ten
rounds, occupying about 40 minutes, and
that he so injured anu discounted his
adversary that he was unable to continue
the fight.
Mr.. Barnes closed by saying: "If this
is case which the officers OF the law, the
police, and what they call the Supervi-
sors, are willing to wink at, it is some
thing to which this tribunal should not
close its eyes; and in the name of those
who have witnessed your Honor's judicial
career, in the name CT the bar, of every
citizen of this City, l respectfully suggest
that this is one of those cases which the
law does not recognize, and that when
professional pugilists contest for $4,000
purse the law will not undertake to re-
referee contest like this, and decide that
one man was a better fighter than the
other and therefore entitled to the purse'
Mr. Freidenrlch followed with his argu-
ment, beginning with the contention that
the court could not go behind the face of
the com plant itself, and therefore could
not regard the testimony taken in the
dispositions. Mr.. Barnes had tried to
hoIt ha SofI
Supervisors of this City had issued per-
NIT for prize-fght, of which all the spec
tators would be guilty of misiemeanor.
A physi contest or boxing match is
not necessarily fight. The statute of
1858 prohibits prlze-fights and not such
harmless diversions as that engaged in by
Messrs. Thomas Sharkey, late of the high
seas, and Robert Filzsimmons, late of
Australia A prize-fght in violation of
the statute meant dght in which the
contestants tried to iniure each other.
Mr.. Freidenrich drew attention to the
neglect OF Mr.. Barnes to make the point
that this contest wasfor prize or purse.
The fact that a contest is for a reward
does not imply that the contest was IL
legal.
point and that Mr.. Freidenrich was vast
ing his time.
By request of the court Mr.. Freidenrich
read the complaint. 1t recited the passage
of the ord nance granting special privi-
lege to the National Athletic Club to give
q boxing tournament during the month of
Decem ber, no contest to exceed ten rounds.
The remainder of the complaint consisted
of recital of charges to the effect that the
referee and others had entered into a con-
spiracy to defraud Fitzsimmons by a
wrong decision.
Judge Sanderson said:
81 may as we'll dispose OF this matter