The sun., 1919-10-26
BAN JOHNSON LOSES
IN CARL MAYS CASE
Justice Wagner Enjoins
League Chief From Inter-
fering With Pitcher.
COSTS TO DEFENDANT
- -->--~.--. ~,-->-------A----
Judges Ruling Discusses Dam
ages Resultant on Injury
to Property Rights.
COSTS TO DEFENDANT

can Baseball League. who was taken
into court by the owners of the New
York club OF that league. because OF his
action In suspending Carl Mays. a
nltcher under contract to the club, yes
,erday received staggering jolt in the
form Of a decision by Supreme Court
Justice Robert Wagner, in which the
Car Of baseball as an individual and
as head Of the American League is per-
usnently enJoined from interfering with
Mays m his capacity as pitcher for the
Yankees The motion for the injunction
was granted with costs. and the Justice
IN his opinion discussed the damages
that might accrue to the New York
club by reason Of the Interference with
me property rights Of that organization
in Pitcher Mays.
Mays had been a pitcher for the Bos-
ton club, and after an accident in Chi
caso was transferred to the New York
suspended Mays for leaving the field in
Chicago and attempted to prevent his
pitching for the New Yorks
Col. Jacob Rupert and Col. T. L, Hus-
ton, owners Of the New York club, OBJ
tained a temporary restraining order
from Justice Robert L. Luce preventing
Joanson's suspension OF Mays becoming
effective. Numerous arguments were
held before several Justices and the mat
ter finally came UP for determination by
Justice Wagner.
Question of Damages.
In speaking Of the damages that might
accrue to the New York club, which had
expended $4,000 in securing the SER
vices Of Mays from the Boston club,
Justice Wagner says:
ut Is undisputed and indeed a matter
Of common knowledge that the CONNER
cialization of baseball is a highly profit
able undertaking. resulting In lucrative
returns to the clubs, stockholders and
employees. Large capital is invested in
the enterprise and the property repre-
sentative OF this capital consists prin-
cipally Of contracts with individual play
ers with reputation for skill and ability
in playing the game. Suspension of a
player. therefore, not only interferes
with his Individual contract, but may
also Interfere with the reputation and
collective ability OF the club. Inasmuch
as the leading clubs Of the league and
their players are entitled at the end OF
the season to certain rights and privi-
leges which are unquestionably to be
deemed property rights, this interference
with an individual player would con-
fuse and possibly destroy the rights Of
the respective clubs and their players. for
the validity of the games in which Mays
participated might be questioned"
History OF the Case.
Justice Wagner then takes up the his
tory OF the events leading to the suspen-
sion Of Mays. Mays was in the employ
OF the Boston club and was engaged in
pitching a game on the grounds of the
Chicago club on July IS, 1919. Mays
had had family trouble, his home in
Pennsylvania had been burned to the
ground and all his baseball trophies had
been consumed. In the Chicago game
at the outset he was not himself and
pitched poor ball In the last half of the
second inning he was struck in the head
by a ball thrown by the catcher. and
later left the field. He was found Sitting
in the clubhouse with his head between
his hands and crying bitterly. Accord
Ing TO Manager Barrow of the Boston
club, he had simply collapsed from a
nervous breakdown accentuated by the
blow in the head from the ball.
Mays was allowed TO leave the grounds
and directed to go to his hotel for medi-
cal treatment Unable to be of any ser
vice 10 the Bostons he asked for a vaca-
ton and went to his home in Pennsylva-
MA reporting back to Mr.. Frazee. owner
o. the Bostons, in New York on July 20.
He was then Sold to the New York club.
On July 81 all umpires of the Ameri-
can League were notified by Johnson Of
Mays's suspension. Johnson claiming the
right 10 discipline" the pitcher and the
Now York and Boston clubs.
Shy as to the Facts.
Then followed a series OF communica-
Tons between Johnson and the New York
and Boston clubs. Johnson's right to
Suspend was questioned and a meeting OF
Tho officers Of the organizat ton discussed
me suspension according to the constitu-
uon and rules of the league. In the
communications Johnson claimed that he
mad not been aware of any injury to
Mays at the time OF the suspension order,
and stated that II was only later that he
learned that Mays had been hit by the
oa-l thrown b. the catcher.
The owners OF the New York and Bos-
ION clubs characterized Johnsons act as
oec!dedly arbitrary. and II was pointed
OUT mat johnson had acted in a similar
manner on other occasions. It was even
Meinuated that Johnson had a personal
grievance against Mays and that that
was one motive for his suspension.
Johnson's Motives.
IN concluding his decision Justice
Wagner says:
II docs not appear necessary to pass
o. me motives which actuated the presi-
ueht IN suspending Mays. His act may
Possibly have ben arbitrary. At the time
me suspension his knowledge and in
surnatlon concerning the real facts were
1"Periect In his examination he testi-
"eu ihat at the time of the suspension he
.oull not fix any penalty until he had
me tacts. Although concedlng that the
matter Of discipline was primarily upon
ne boston club, he admits that at the
une the suspension was ordered he did
nDt inquire whether or not the Boston
,Io mad disciplined the player Neither
~ no eau the player before him for an
Np'~hation In the light OF these facts,
considering the far reaching effects
us suspension. the loss to the plaintiff
'u 10 the Boston club, the confusion of
We rights OF the clubs and players and
serious damage that could accrue to
property rights. the PRESIDENTS act
80 10 say the least. not fortified with
LAY perfect appreciation OF the facts
"nLuh evlnces desire to do equity to all
PARTIES concerned.
IA, me motion for an injunction pendente
i've IS therefore granted, with costs"
EVERYTHING For
billiards EfSiT b0wIjnu