JACK DOYLE LOSES £3000

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 August 1934, Page 10

JACK DOYLE LOSES £3000

JUDGMENT FOR BOXING BOARD. The appeal of the British BoxingBoard of Control in connection with the payment of £3,000 to Jack Doyle, the boxer, was allowed by the Court of Appeal (the Master of ’the Rolls, Lord Hahworth, and Lords Justices Slesser and Romer). Mr. Justice MacKinnon .had decided that the Board had no right to withhold a purse of £3,000 from Jack Doyle after his fight with Petersen for the heavyweight championship of. England at the White City last July. Doyle was disqualified and the Board withheld the purse under a rille passed after the issue of Doyle’s first boxing licence, in March, 1932, but before its renewal,in March, 1933. Mr. Justice MacKinnon held that the Board were not entitled to withhold the purse, because Doyle was not accused of deliberately fouling Petersen, and because the amended rule with reference to the consequences of disqualification at a fight had not been brought to Doyle’s notice. It was also argued on behalf of Doyle that the rule could not be enforced against an “infant.” He was then under 21. On behalf of the Board it was stated that if the point about infancy were upheld, they might have to refuse licences to all boxers under the age of 21. When the point relating to “infancy’’ was being argued by Serjeant Sullivan, K.C. (for Doyle), the Master of the Rolls said:

“It is to the advantage of everybody, infants as well as others, that there shall be clean fighting. This infant is just as much concerned - that there should be no fouling, and no improper fighting, as anyone else, because he earns his living by boxing. It is to everybody’s advantage that there should be no hitting below the belt. Then the question is: What is the sanction you are to have, and the only sanction suggested is that, if that happens, there shall be power to prevent money being handed over to the offender.” The Court did not call on Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C. (for the Board), to reply, and the Master of the Rolls proceeded to give judgment. One of the regulations of the Board, he said, provided that, in case of disqualification, a boxer was entitled to receive only bare travelling expenses, pending a decision by the .Board, and that the Board might ultimately deal with the money as it thought fit. “It. will be seen,” his lordship continued, “that these rules are framed lor the purpose of securing, clean fighting, and disqualifying persons, who use certain strokes—such as hitting below the belt, the pivot blow, and a number of others which are technical, but which are barred by the regulations —and it must be plain that the Board docs endeavour to safeguard the interests of professional . boxers throughout the world by laying down these rules.” There was no question that Doyle was disqualified. He was legally an infant, but the term “boy” was a little inapt when applied to him, as his fighting weight was 15,st. “Doyle,” said the Master of the Rolls, “entered the ring as a licensee of the Board, and as one who had agreed to adhere strictly to the rules and abide by further rules and alterations. “That enlargement of the rules (the alteration in June) may well have

been in the interests of the contestants themselves. It may well have been that the Board felt they had not sufficient authority in respect of those who broke the rules. “SO tile rille was passed giving greater power to the Board, but it seems to hie entirely. for the purpose of preserving clean fighting, according to the legitimate rules. ft is as much for the benefit of the contestant y'ho fails as for the coiitestarit fvho succeeds.” ( ..It ,had.been argfied that Doyle was entitled, in any ev.eht, to. receive £3,000 for .seyvices ; rendered; that, the withholding of t|ie money was, in the nature of a -penalty, and that a penalty could iipt be enforced on an infant to )iis ’disa.dyantagp, “To my mind,” sajd.his. lordshjp, “all jtHfese. observations involve a .complete .(if the rules of the tei’ms and conditions on which the fight took place. “It is as much in the interests of

the plaintiff as of any othei' contestant that there should he clean fighting, and that he should be protected against an adversary’s misconduct —hitting below the belt or anything of the sort.” In these circumstances Doyle was not entitled to succeed in the action. The appeal, would be allowed with costs, and judgment entered for the Board. Lords Justices Slesser and Romer concurred.. “If Serjeant Sullivan were right,” said Lord Justice Slesser, “the ,result would be that no infant could ever obtain.. af boxer’s licence, because it woiijd be very unlikely that the Board would .ever give him one unless he, on his part, .was under some obligation for .proper fighting. ... “Whether. that would be a good thing or a bad thing, in the national interests, it is not for me to decide, but at any rate that would bo the result.”