The San Francisco call., 1897-03-17
SHARKEY
SAYS He
WON 7 PAY
Takes High Moral Grounds
Against Trainer Aliens
Bill.
HIS CONTRACT AGAINST
PUBLIC POLICY.
Work Done in Furtherance of a
Prize-Fight Not Legal
Basis for a Suit.
CIVIC FEDERATION IS GIVEN
a WEAPON.
Opponents of Boxing Matches In.
formed That Such Contests
Are Feionious.
HIS CONTRACT AGAINST
PUBLIC POLICY.
CIVIC FEDERATION IS GIVEN
a WEAPON.
Opponents of Boxing Matches In
formed That Such Contests
Are Feionious.

Business men and dealers in general
will find it necessary to use great caution
in their transactions with prize-6ghters if
the theories of Thomas Sharkey are sus-
tanned in the courts.
Trainers Of pugilists will also find it
essential to arrange for the collection of
their wages in advance, lest the fighters
TO whom they give instruction may grow
so virtuous after victory that they will not
feel disposed to fulfill the requirements of
a contract that is contrary to public
policy, illegal and, consequently, not
binding.
From sporting viewpoint this attitude
assumed by Mr.. Sharkey is most i'm
portant. 1t has put weapon in the
hands of those who are opposed TO boxing
matches. for if Mr.. Sharkey says his con-
test with Mr.. Fitzsimmons was q prize
fight and, consequently, felony. or, to
say the least, an infraction of the peace
and unlawful, then those who are opposed
TO fistic encounters are justified in appeal
ing to the law for the suppression OF such
exhibitions.
II the mem bers of the Civic Federation
or others interested in such matters care
have but to copy the brief filed by Mr..
Sharkey, in which he soemnly declares
that such boxing affairs are illegal, and
the arm of the law will be stretched forth
to end them. This will be a result neither
looked for nor appreciated by the promot-
ers of pugilisiic encounters.
Some time ago J. ]. Rauer, assignee for
George Allen, sued Sharkey for $500 on
account of Aliens services in training
Mr.. Sbarkey for his boxing glove contro-
versy with Robert FitZsimmons in GER
tain 24-foot ring in this City.
Herein rested dangerous element, for
Mr.. Sharkey, through his counsel, w. H.
L. Barnes, has taken the high moral
ground that the contract under which the
services were rendered was in itself con-
tract contrary to common decency, pub
lie morality and the law" For this rea-
son the defendant asks that Judgment be
given in favor of himself and against the
plaintiff on the pleadings. The alleged
services as specified in the complaint are
as follows:
That within two years last past at the City
and County of San Francisco one George Allen
performed work and labor and rendered
vices in and about the training ana prepara-
tion of the defendant Thomas Sharkey Tor his
fstlc encounter with one r. Fitzslmmons.
Mr.. Sharkey's lawyer proceeding on the
lines laid down says:
We contend that it appears from the COM
plaint that the services rendered were in the
training OF the said defendant for prize-fight
and comes within the provisions of the act of
March 8, 1898, prohibltory of prize lighting
and making the same felony.
Mr.. Sharkey then quotes from the Gen.
tury dictionary to show that fistic en-
counter is a prize-fight and that prize
fight is fstic encounter.
From the same source it was learned
that fight means to engage in battle or
single combat to attempt 10 subdue or
n docfr on ady hu hive
SO that in fact, Mr.. Sharkey AYERS, the
complaint attirmativelv alleges fight
whereby brutsing or manning or other
serious bodily hurt may result to the
participants"
Mr.. Sharkey in further opposition to the
payment OF Mr.. Aliens pill sets forth the
following argument:
A further element of prize-ighting is set
forth in the complaint in the allegation that
plaintiHs S assignor trained defendant. 1t is q
matter of common knowledge that training is
matter antecedent to a prize-fght and pre-
paratory therefor, and the court may so con-
slider such matters; as 1t was said in the case
of Seville the State, reported in 80 n T.
Reporter, ga, as follows:
The question (What is a prize -fight? p is not one
OF skill or science, to be decided upon the opinion
of those experienced in such practices by rules
adopted for the government associaio ms of said
persons but one within the comprehension or the
knowledge
Mr.. Sharkey's protest against the liqui-
dation of the debt ADDS:
Coneeding for the purposes of argument that
the "fstic encounter for which plaintiffs
assignor trained the defendant, Sharkey, was
not priZe-fght IL must have been a ca Sc of
battery, is shown by section 242 of the
Penal Code. The note to that section is in
these words: where two persons mutually
fight by agreement each is equally guilty of d
several and distinct offense."
Again, if the "hstic encounter alleged is
not prize-fght, but sn ordinary fight does
IL IN
lawful?
Following that pointed question Mr..
Sharkey sets forth the several grounds of
public policy, morality and decency
whereby such a contract would be void
and Incidentally leads the court to infer
that it would not be right to pay the bill,
even if he should wish to do SO. He re-
gretfully says: ~
Objection TO q recovery cannot be obviated
or waived by any system of pleadings, or even
by the express stipulation OF the parties The
court itself is bound TO raise objection to the
proceedings in the interest of the administra-
ton of justice and will not listen to claims
founded on such services those alleged to
have been rendered In this case.
To establish this principle Mr.. Sharkey
cites the learned opinion of the United
States District Court of New Jersey, where
Oscanyon sued the New York Arms Com
pany for comm issions on certain arms un-
lawfully sold to the Ottoman Govern ment,
whereupon Mr.. Sharkey soiemnly COM
ments:
If the court condemns such a contract as the
one embraced in the case quoted, how much
stronger the case at bar appeals to the court
for condemnation. If such contract is de-
clared to be contrary TO pub bile morality q
fortior, SO should contract be declared that
has for its objec. the teaching or training and
educating of one man 10 attempt 10 physically
defeat, subdue or destroy an adversary.
To further bolster up his determination
not to do anything so much against
public policy and morality as 10 paw his
trainer for teaching him the manly art OF
prize-fighting Mr.. Sharkey cites the de-
cison of Judge Sanderson in the case OF
Fitzsim mons VS.. Sharkey, when the court
refused 10 entertain the matter a. all aud