ALBERT HALL FIGHT

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 December 1934, Page 4

ALBERT HALL FIGHT

MATT WELLS’S LOST LICENCE. LONDON, October 24. Mr. Matt Wells, ithe boxing referee, was the plaintiff in an action against the British Boxing Board of Control before Mr. Justice Avory, in the King's Bench Division. He sought to test the validity of the action of the Board (Col. R. E. Myddleton and five others) in withdrawing his licence after the heavyweight contest at the Albert Hall on March 13, 1933, between Don McCorkindale, the South African and Walter Neusel, the German. Mr. Wells refereed and declared the fight a draw. Serjeant Sullivan, K.C. (for Mr Wells), said a declaration was claimed that the withdrawal of Mr Wells’s licence by the Board was illegal. He also sought an injunction to restrain the Board from acting upon their decision. The defence was that, under the Board’s rules, they were justified. “Mr Wells, in his young days, when

his circumference was less, was a champion boxer in his class, and a professional boxer for many years.” counsel continued. “Since then he has acted as referee at boxing contests.” The question for the Court was - Did the Board impute that Mr Wells had been guilty of some misconduct that unfitted him to remain a referee? If, in the publication by the Board of their decision, there was an imputation reflecting on the integrity of Mr Wells, it was a libel on him, as there was no suggestion that any man was ever entitled to make an allegation of dishonesty or lack of integrity against Mr Wells. After hearing the evidence the jurymight come to the conclusion that the Board, whose rules aimed at securing fair play in the ring, might themselves have to learn something about fair play. Mr Wells had acted as referee in a great, number of championship contests, and was on the “star” list of -the Boxing Board’s referees.

Dealing with the fight in question,' Serjeant Sullivan said it was a very poor one. For a number of rounds neither McCorkindale nor Neusel did anything of note, and the crowd became restive. In Matt Wells’s opinion it was not a question of who was the better boxer, but who was the worse? He came to the conclusion that they were equal, and declared the match a draw. That that was an honest and straightforward verdict was not disputed. A number of people thought it was wrong and a number thought it was right, and there was a considerable disturbance in the hall. “One of the mysteries in the case,” continued Serjeant Sullivan, “is this: Who, behind the screen of the eminently respectable board, has been attacking Matt Wells? His anonymous accuser remains unknown to the present moment.” Mr Wells’s explanation of his verdict of a draw was that, in

his opinion, the- fight ought never to have taken place, as neither boxer was in form for a first-class contest. One of them, in his view, had. the ’flu, and the other a damaged wrist. Mr Wells pressed for some indication 'of the misconduct of which it was alleged he had been adjudged guilty. Finally, a month after the withdrawal of his licence, he was informed that the Board were dissatisfied with his explanation of his refereeing of the fight, and that his licence was withdrawn on the ground of incompetence. Giving evidence, Mr Wells said he was lightweight amateur champion for four years, and in 1911, when he was ; 28, and a professional, he won the fight-weight championship of Great Britain. He was now a licensed victualler, and, since 1921, had been refereeing fir St-class fights. The fight referred to was a poof contest, and a draw was his honest opinion of the result. Both men scored equal points, but afterwards he either lost or mislaid his score card. When he appeared before the board a steward told him that he was seen to use a pencil with a rubber end to mark the score card, and that he “fumbled about with it.” Was any charge made against you?—None whatever. I asked the chairman what I was charged with, and I got no reply. Later he attended a meeting of boxing referees, one of whom asked him if he had prejudged the contest,- and added, “Do you know there were men at the ringside long before the contest took place betting that it'would be a draw?” Continuing his evidence Mr Wells said his licence was withdrawn on an earlier occasion in connection with his refereeing of the Jarvis contest on October 23, 1929. He sued the board for wrongfully withdrawing his ' licence. Mr Martin O’Connor (for the plaintiff): Did the board, at the trial of ( that action, agree to pay you damages and costs and to make an i apology?—They did, and restored my 1 licence.

FIGHT OR FARCE? Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C. (crossexamining) ; Whose duty is it to see that a fight docs not degenerate into a farce? —The referee's. Supposing the referee see the fight is so degenerating, what ought he to do? —Turn them out of the ring and call “No contest.” Supposing he does not do that, he is guilty of either grave misconduct or gross incompetence, is he not? I should think so. Questioned about the Albert Hall fight, Mr Wells said McCorkindale knocked down Neusel for a count of eight in the first round. Sir Patrick: After that did the light degenerate into a complete and utter farce? —Oh, no; it became uninteresting for the crowd. In point of fact this became simply a booing match after the first round? —No, it became uninteresting. Had you ever before seen them box in the way the did on this night? No. I admit that. Boxers are not always consistent. It would be a coincidence, would it not, if, on the night that McCorkindale might feel poorly, the other boxer was feeling poorly, too?—That would be nothing out of the way! two boxers may be out of form; they are onlv human. But these men were playing as a couple of school children?—l don’t admit that. And the crowd were booing and jeering?— They were not. Dealing with the last round, Sir Patrick suggested that McCorkindale was leaning on the ropes, more or less tapping Neusel feebly and not trying to knock him out. In (he view of the crowd, wasn’t Neusel the better in this tapping contest?—l did not interview the crowd (Laughter).

But people in the crowd were Idling you that ip a very pleasant sort of way from the back, weren’ they?— It s the custom of the crowd to do that. Did you go up to McC'orkindale and say, “Don, don’t take any notice of the crowd, just box”?—I. told him to

box and not to take any notice of the crowd. Mr Justice Avory: Then he was not boxing. Mr Wells: He was then resting in his corner. Sir Patrick: Well, you didn’t .expect him to box then. (Laughter). “POINTS” FOR WITNESS. Sir Patrick was asking about the crowd’s behaviour when Mr Wells replied, “My job is in the ring in command of the contest, and I can t hear what the crowd is saying. The suggestion is absurd.” “Good,” said Sir Patrick, as if turning referee, “you get five points for that.” “If this fight had been a farce,” asked Mr Justice Avory, “would it not have been detrimental to the public interest to allow it to go on? Mr Wells: It would. But I do not admit the fight was a farce. Don McCorkindale, who said he was a professional heavyweight boxer and had fought twice for the British title, gave evidence. He said at the fight in question he was suffering from a bad cold. ‘ Serjeant Sullivan, K.C. (for the plaintiff): Did Matt Wells show you any favour in the fightNo£ that I remember.' Did you do your best to win? —I certainly did. McCorkindale added that he beat Neusel six months later. Sir Patrick Hastings (cross-examin-ing): -How? —On a foul. Were you very ill when you went into the ring?—l was not “fighting fit.” It would have been a ghastly calamity for you if Neusel had gone into the ring fit? —Yes. It was a stroke of luck for you that, in such an important fight, your opponent was not “fighting fit.”?—lt was a coincidence.

Mr Justice Avory: The doctor passed you as fit? —Yes. In further reply to Sir Patrick Hastings, McCorkindale. said that, from the way Neusel hit, he did not gather that he was not fit. (Laughter). He (witness) did his honest best to win, and received between £l5O and £2OO from the light.

Opening the defence, Sir Patrick Hastings suggested that the light was a bogus one in the sense that both boxers were not trying. Mr Charles Frederick Donmall, general secretary of the 8.8.8. C., said he was present at meetings of the Board and of the referees’ committee which Mr Wells attended. Matt Wells told the members that both boxers were fighting under difficulties, that he had a boxer’s heart, and old boxers knew what /it w - as like to be turned out of the ring. Cross-examined by Serjeant Sullivan, Mr Donmall said no allegation of unfair play was made against either boxer.

Mr Percy John Moss, a steward of the board, and a member of the Referees Committee, said when Mr Weils appeared before the stewards and the referee he said it was a poor, bout, and he formed the opinion that something was the matter with both boxers. Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C. (for the Board of Control): Were you satisfied with Wells’s explanation?—No, we thought he was lying. Serjeant Sullivan (cross-examin-ing) : What is the lie you are charging him with? —There was the story of his score-card which he could not produce. What, in your opinion, was the decision which Matt Wells should have given?—That Neusel won easily.

■ “CROOKED FIGHT.” i J Capt. E. V. Chandler, ex-amateur Bri- , tish Empire middle-weight and heavy- ■ weight champion, an amateur referee and a member of the Referees’ Committee, said, in reply to Serjeant Sul- . livan, that the decision should have i been to turn both boxers out of the ring after the third round. Did you form an opinion that Matt Wells was incompetent or dishonest? —Dishonest. It was not that he -was incompetent, but that he failed in his duty corruptly?—Corruptly. What is the corruption you alleged? —Taking instructions from fight managers that the fight was to be a draw. Betting men left the ringside before the fight began, and were laying even money that the result would be a draw. You caine to the conclusion that it was arranged with the referee? —Furthermore, one of the bookmakers said it was a crooked fight. You spoke highly of Matt Wells; did his character change on that night? —lt came as a great shock to me. In my opinion he was the tool in the hands of promoters and managers. Can you suggest the name of any promoter or manager who would have “squared” Matt Wells to give a dishonest decision?—l could, but I am not prepared to. Capt. Chandler added that he formed an opinion that the boxers, particularly Neusel, were “pulling their punches.” Col. Robert Myddleton, permanent chairman of the administrative stewards of the 8.8.8. C.. said the decision of the board confirming that of the Referees’ Committee was honest and im- ! partial, and arrived at without malice. : Cross-examined by Serjeant Sullivan, 1 Col. Myddleton said the report of the 1 Referees’ Committee satisfied the board that Mr Wells was not competent to hold a licence. ' “My opinion on that report,” he * added, “was that Wells was thoroughly incompetent as a referee.” (

Lord Tweedmouth, a member of the board who attended the fight, said he thought the decision of Wells an extraordinary one. The contest was not correctly handled, and. neither boxer was up to his form. Serjeant Sullivan (cross-examin-ing) : What decision do you say he should have given?—He should have turned the boxers out of the ring. After hearing legal submissions, Mr Justice Avory decided that there was no evidence to go to the jury that the board acted maliciously or illegally in depriving Mr Wells of his licence, or that they acted in any sense beyond the powers conferred upon them by the rules. Regarding the complaint that Mr Wells was not given notice of the allegation against him, His Lordship was satisfied that he was given sufficient and proper notice of what he was called upon to explain, namely, bis conduct in refereeing the fight in question. If Air Wells had any doubt of what be was being charged with it was made abundantly clear to him at the meeting of the Referees’ Committee—attended by brother referees, tvhose sympathies, if they had any, would be with Malt Wells. Mr Justice Avory said he did not agree that incompetence might not mean misconduct within the meaning of the board's rules. Misdonduct in-

cluded conduct detrimental to the interests of the public. “I cannot doubt that incompetence in a referee may be detrimental to the interests of the public who pay for admittance, and are entitled to expect that a referee will do his duty properly,” his lordship added. He was satisfied that the board gave Mr Wells every opportunity of putting forward any defence he might have to the complaint against him. So far as a claim for libel by Mr Wells was concerned, Mr Justice Avory held that, under the rules, the plaintiff consented to the publication of tho board’s decision. That was a complete answer to any libel claim. Judgment was entered for the D.8.8.C.. with costs.