Weekly journal-miner. [volume] (Prescott, Ariz.) 1908-1929, 1914-01-21
IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF
PRESCOTT PRECINCT, CoUN-
TY OF YAVAPAI, STATE OF
ARIZONA.

II OF 1AVAPAl, STATE Oh
ARIZONA.
The State of Arizona, plaintiff. VS.
Phil Knight, Daniel Mathews. Will
Fitzgerald. Jack McMahn, San
kraus, Ed Hill. Fred Ellis. Floy,
Williams and Robert Lankau, de
PENDANTS. Motion by the Count,
Attorney.
Comes now the County Attorne,
OF Yavapai County and makes tn,
following statement and motion il
the above entitled case.
The statute under which the com
plant in the case was drawn is a:
follows:
Every person who engages in,
instigates. encourages or pro-
dnotes any ring or prize fight
or any other premeditated fight
or contention without deadly
weapon). either rs principal. aid,
second, umpire. surgeon or 9TH
erwisc. is punishable by impris-
onment in the Territorial (State)
prison not exceeding two years.
1t will be observed that the
above statute applies to all premed-
itated ring or prize fights or con.
tentionS. The word contention" rs
used in the statute, under we'll
known rules of statutory construc-
ton, must be confined to the con
,entions previously mentioned. to
wit: Ring or prize fights. because
If not so confined. it might be also
applied to I basketball contention
a baseball contention. or any other
contention. 1t is therefore apparen'
that the word contention" rs used
in the statute, simply applies to ring
or prize fight contentious and C
no other.
Under the law, 4 fight must have
occurred to come within the pur
view of the Statute. This PROPOSE
ion cannot be successfully con
troverted.
In the case OF State VS.. Purtell
ct al, 43 Pac. Rep. 7S2, the Su-
preme Court of Kansas, in revers-
ing 4 Judgment of conviction for
prize fighting, used this language
The Court (meaning the low
er Court instructed the jury
that the word prize fight as
used in the statute, means 4
fight or physical contest between
two parties for prize or re-
ward: and the phrase fight or
physical contest" or the express
sion fight or contest" is re-
peated many times in the in
structions.
By this the Court gave the
jury to understand that it need
not be a fight. but that a ply
steal contest for a prize or re-
ward was punishable under the
statute. This is not the law.
There are many physical con-
tests which are not only not
punishable, but altogether per-
misSible.
1t was conceded that the de-
PENDANTS engaged in 4 physical
contest. 1t was even conceded
that they engaged i'll 4 boxing
match, but it was not admitted
that they fought. 1t is a fight
only that the statute reaches.
Wrestling. fencing. boxing and
numberless other matches, in
which the physical powers are
employed by men i'll friendly
contests with each other, are
not punishable Ii must be
fight. The word fight" implies
a purpose to infiict injury.
In the Kansas case that have
quoted, p rounds of sparring took
place: one OF the contestants was
down. and failing to get ~,
was declared beaten. The only ques-
ton was whether it was a prize
fight or a sparring exhibition; if a
prize fight. it was unlawful; if only
4 sparring exhibition, then it was
lawful
The Supreme Court of Kansas,
IS before stated. reversed the judg- |
nent and sentence of conviction be !
cause the lower court misdirected |
the jury as to the law.
As County Attorney, it is my duty !