The age-herald., 1901-02-15

| ~~~~~-~~------~------~-~ | fighc under the rules of the Marquis of Queensberry The court read these rules and held that a contest under them for | the championship of the world was cer- tainly prize fight under the Ohio law, and in fact. He reviewed the three kinds | of contests referred to by Brady, Madden and others in their evidence L Prize fights unlimited in the time or number of rounds.
 2. Contests limited in the time of rounds and intermission, but not in the number of rounds.
 3. Contests limited in time and number of rounds and decisions rendered therein on points.
 Fatal Knockout Possible.
 The court held that fatal knockout could come under any of these classes, and that any contest for a prize was a prize fight in which resort to brutality might take place at any time.
 The court cited cases at great length in deciding the following points:
 Ffrst-That the proposed contest is to be prize fight in fact and such as Is prohibited under the Ohio statutes and that the contentious of the defendants that they proposed to give a boxing con- test had not been maintained
 Second-That the proposed fight would constitute a public nuisance such as courts of equity are bound to restrain.
 Third-That as court of equity he had the power to enjoin the fight although there was legal remedy after its occur renee.
 Fourth-That in view of all the circum- stances he was bound to grant per manent injunction against such a pub lie nuisance as was contemplated in the proposed prize fight.
 The judge stated that he found a prize fight rathr than a boxing contest to be contemplated not only by the evidence of the State, but also by that of witnesses for the defense. He added "The difference between public and pri- vate nuisance is that a public nuisance | involves private property and a private | nuisance involves all the interests of l mankind."'
 The court stated that city fair name and it's reputation as a law-abiding com | munity is @ property right sufficient to enjoin prize fight. He said: 1.-The proposed contest is distinct step | backward. It sets a false standard of l manly virtue. The progress of civiliza- | ton is slow-very slow. A man advances or he retrogrades. There is no such thing as standing still. So it is with a com munity. Such affairs as this proposed contest are degrading and stand in the way of progress
 Civil Rights involved.
 Civil rights are here involved. Equity will not enJoin a crime merely because it is a crime, but when that crime be- comes a public nuisance, equity can step in"
 The court upheld the right of the attor- ney general to appear in court in the suit against the fight. He said the State Is directly interested in every case in which the public morals are involved, as Is true, he said, in the case of the fight.
 He cited an Indiana Supreme Court in- junction against prize fight as one of the main precedents on which he based his right to grant the injunction. The court reviewed the testimony of Mayor Fleischman at length to show that such events as he regarded as contests for points in boxing were really prize fights as contemplated under the Ohio law Judge Peck, counsel for the defendants, later in the day gave notice of appeals, and took exceptions to the finding of the court both In law and in fact.
 After court adjourned counsel for the defendants met, and the promoters post poned the contest on account of the de- cree of the court.