The New York herald., 1920-01-24
NO DECISION ON
JOHNSON'S APPEAL
Appellate Division of Supreme Court
Withholds Disposition of Case
Involving Carl Mays.

The Appellate Division OF the Supreme
Court yesterday reserved decision on the
appeal Of Byron Bancroft Johnson. presi-
dent Of the American League OF Profess
sional Baseball Clubs. and the st. Louis
anc Cleveland American League baseball
clubs. from the injunction granted by
Supreme Court Justice Robert F. Wagner,
which restraints them from interfering
with Carl w. Mays. as pitcher for the
New York American team, pending the
final outcome of the legal action of the
American League Baseball Company of
New York, Inc. Justice John Proctor
Clarke presided.
Marvin w. Wynne as attorney for the
appellants, made little OF the assertion Of
the New York management that Mays
had not violated his Boston Red Sox con-
tract willingly. Mays" said Mr. Wynne.
was said TO have been hit by a ball,
though IN his own affdavits he did not
mention the spherical bit of horsehide as
being az all worthy of blame. Then he
was said to have been suffering from pri-
vate worries. which proved. according to
affidavit. to have been fire in his home
which had destroyed his wedding presents
and his baseball trophies some time in the
x,
the field in Chicago leaving a game un-
played until July"
Mr.. Wynnc quoted the pitcher as having
spoken to Burt Whitman. Edward p. Cum
ningham and Nicholas J. Flatey as fol-
lows
II am convinced that il VIII be innpos-
sible for me to preserve my confidence In
myself as ballplayer and stay with the
Red SoX as the team is now handled SO
far this year l have won five games and
lost one. l have played better ball than
ever, but never have known where Iswas
at. The entire team is up in the air. and
things have gone from bad TO worse, and
that is all there is to it,"
In arguing for the plaintiff respondent,
Charles II. Tuttle, Of counsel, declared
that the order of Justice Robert f. Wag-
ner granting preliminary injunction had
continued an injunction eX parte, enjoining
the defendants from giving effect TO a
lpurported order of suspension. issued by
Ban Johnson against Carl w. Mays. a
like injunction. he said. had been granted
by the Circuit Court of Michigan.
The order now appealed from" con-
Linued Mr.. Tuttle. had the effect OF con-
tinuinS that injunction pending the de-
termination OF the action. No other course
could have prevented irremediable injury
to the plaintiff at the time that the court
below was acting. Without the inter-
played. and IL. at the subsequent trial, il
should be determined that the order of
suspension was invalid, then the plaintiff
would be without any remedy at all. 1t
could never show what would have been
its position In the pennant race IL Mays
mad been allowed to play and it could
supply no measure Of damages On the
other hand. by allowing Mays to play
approximate justice has been assured, be-
cause, II the trial goes against the plain
uff, the games in which Mays has played
could be eliminated"
MIR. Tuttle then reviewed the history OF
the case. spoke Of Mr.. Johnsons alleged
financial interest in the Cleveland Ameri-
can League club. of the competition be-
tween clubs. including the Cleveland club.
10 secure transfer of Mays from the
Boston club. and quoted Manager Bar
rows. Of the Boston club, as stating
that the Chicago. Cleveland st. Louis
ana Detroit clubs had negotiated with him
for the services of Carl w. Mays
Mr.. Johnson said Mr.. Tuttle," issued
no order of suspension until the Cleveland
club failed to secure Mays. and then did
so as a punishment to the successful
bidder"
Presiding Justice Clarke, at the close of
the argument of counsel for Mr.. John
son. remarked
HE (Mr. Johnson) is the whole league,
that is your contention"
Yes, sir. He's the man who made base
ball. was the answer. He is that under
the reorganization plan by vote of eight
members OF the league"
Justice Victor J. Bowling asked counsel
how often the directors of the league met
and whether it would not be difficult for
the directorate to convene to act promptly
rs to individual cases To this counsel re-
piled that Johnson was virtually a big
umpire. under the league rules. authorized
to make rulings as to rules of the game
and misconduct that. was clearly and
positively in violation of those rules, but
not ns 10 such matters as are presented in
a dispute between managers of teams. He
expressed the conviction that the suit
could be tried and ended before the open
ing of the season of 1890 and said that
therefore there was no reason for in
terfering with the operation of the in
junction.