The Sentinel=record., 1914-04-05


 filing of its complaint herein, had a
 team of thirty-two men in Hot Springs training for the championship and to commence with the opening of the season. The defendant came to Hot Springs. l suppose from his con duet. to procure from plaintiff at least two of it's players, who were under contract with plaintiff for the 1914 season, and were at the time in prac- tice here with plaintiff for the pur- pose of qualifying for the opening of the 1914 season on April 14, it being only a few days until the opening season and, as testified to- it would be almost impossible at that date to fill their places, from the fact that all players of known skill and ability had been employed by other clubs. That 10 cripple plaintiff by taking from it it's players at this time would possibly drive it from the field of competition and the defendants com pany greatly benefited financially thereby, and with this purpose in view, the defendant sought an inter view with VioX and McQuillan, two of plaintiffs players, with whom it had contract for the season to play for It. These two players were in- yited to meet the defendant at the Texas bar, which they did. and de. fendant at once informed them that he was here representing the Fed eral league. and wanted two men. and desired to make contracts with them. The defendant was informed of their contracts with plaintiff ana that they were satisfied After this, McQullan was asked if $3,500 woul0 be an inducement for him to break his contract with plaintiff It was then raised to S4,000. $500 and final ly S5,000. About the same prOpOsi tion was made to Viox, and after his refusal he was followed by Happy Holmes. the man who carried the message for defendant to witnesses to meet him, and appears to be act ing in concert with defendant This is not disputed by defendant or Happy" Holmes, who was pointed out in the court room by the wit. nesses while testifying; then it must be that defendant knew these wit ursses were under contract Of pm- Foyment with plaintiff, and with this knowledge did attempt by offer ing each of them larger salaries than they had contracted for with plaintiff, to cause them to breacA their contract with plaintiff For what other purpose could this offer have been made? Witness McQuil. Ian testifes that defendant asked him if these offers would be an in- ducement for him to jump his con- tract with plaintiff Then this must have been the purpose of the offer.
 The demurrer to the complaint un- der our statutes, Sec 609t not dis tinctly specifying the grounds of ob- jectou to the complaint, it is, there fore. only an objection that tue com paint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause Of action. think the complaint is sufficient, for the reason that persons business is property, and there is nothing shown that baseball is in any man. ner unlawful.
 Some intimation has been made that this court has no jurisdiction, for the reason that defendant. as saown by the evidence is guilty Of a criminal offense. under Kirby's Di. gest, as amended I do not think this act takes away this courts iur- isdiction 10 protect property rights, This court would not undertake to enIoin a gambling house or viola ton of Sunday laws. or close saloons on Sunday or stop baseball game lon sunday. all of which are viola tions of our statute unless there should be property rights involved. But when property rights are endan- gered, the fact that the act is crim- ina will not prevent this court ex- ercising its jurisdiction If there is an interference. actual or threatened, with property rights or rights of a peouniafy nature, equity arises and is moi destroyed by the fact that the acts within themselves are violations