Weekly journal-miner. [volume] (Prescott, Ariz.) 1908-1929, 1914-02-04
EVERYBODY HAPPY!
ALL WIN, ALL LOSE
Judge Smith Decides January 9th Bout
Was a Prizefight but Dismisses
The Two Defendants

boxing contest and the place wher
one begins and the other ends.
The hearing was featured by tn
usual crowd OF spectators and Wi
nesses, array of legal talent an
the clash of rapiers of wit and iron,
Bad blood appeared on the surfac
more than once and counsel for bot
the defense and prosecution in
dulged in several merry tits whic
branded the third bout of the tour
ncy as the nearest approach to
verbal prizehght than any of tn
preceding contests.
General Bullard conduct
ed the case upon behalf of tn,
State. Associated with the prose
cution were County Attorney P. w
O'Sullivan and Assistant County AT
torney Joseph H. Morgan, as wei
as Attorneys E. S. Clark and J
Ralph Tascher, who represented the
Civic League in the reform move
ment. But neither OF these attorneys
handled the case in any detail
whatsoever, the attorney-general be-
ing in charge every minute of the
time.
Like a game of checkers, Attor-
ney Anderson of the defense and
Attorney-General Bullard swayed
their tactics back and forth.
Verbal tits which were out of order
were frequent and OF the most bit.
ing sort in irony. Both attorneys
navigated the sea OF uncertainty IN
connection with the terms involved,
with skill and ready contradictory
store of oratory.
The Encouragement worked
along far different lines than the
ones pursued in the initial hearing
when the county attorney motioned
for the dismissal of the complaints.
He set out to prove that there had
been a prizefight conducted, laying
less stress upon his previous inter
probation OF the law with regards &c
the prohibition of every kind OF
ring contest in the State.
Had the encouragement, how
ever, worked simply to prove that
his Interpretation of the law had
been violated, far different stu
ton would have presented itself
Tor Judge Smith declared that lie
didn't concur with the interpreta-
ton. He examined and cross-ex.
amined the prosecutions witnesses
When counsel for the defense OBJ
jected to the unique procedure Of
a prosecuting attorney cross-exam-
ming his own witness, the attorney
general explained his course BY
branding his witnesses as hostile"
Both attorneys delivered able
arguments to the court before the
decision was rendered. The attor-
general declared that Arizona:
law with regards 10 fstic encounters
was the most drastic in the Union
He said that it was not necessary
for i fistic encounter to be a prize
fight in order to violate the sta
tutes;; any premeditated contention
was a direct violation. He quoted
definitions from a dictionary.
Personally" he declared, 81 ell
joy seeing these contests. But i'll
the legislature of the State or III
the people OF the State by an &C,
of law say that these contests can't
be held, certainly it is the wish OF
the officers and law-abiding citizens
TO see that the law is obeyed be
cause upon obeying is the founda-
ton of civilized society If a law
is bad law, the way to get it of
the statutes is to enforce it,
The present law, he declared, WIS
enacted for the purpose OF prohibit
ing just such contests as held here
After reviewing the testimony IN
the case, he declared: II like to see
a prizeight. 1t is a heritage Of the
primevial instinct. But the law =
there. There are other instincts
handed down, but the law won't
permit our exercising them"
As Attorney Anderson for the dc
Tense was waxing warm in his argu-
mcnt, the attorney general made re-
peatcd efforts for an interruption.
finally attracting Mr.. Andcrson's at
tcntion.
Bullard-"Can l interrupt you al
Anderson-"No, you cannot: | |
didn't interrupt you. Nor did ] !
put you on the witness stand
either
Bullard-"IIow's That"
Anderson-"Oh yes, you wen,
down there with me one night. !
pointing his finger in the direc-