Wrestling in Melbourne.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 52, 11 October 1887, Page 3

Wrestling in Melbourne.

THE RECENT CONTEST.

Refeubing to tho recent CannonDunn match a sporting critic says :— Looked at from every side the affair was an eminently uusalisfactory one. The public paid high prices to see wrestling in five styles, and were disappointed. That disappointment thev manifested in a marked manner. With regard to the merits of the dispute it will, perhaps, be as well to sum up the various points of the matter. In the first place, it is admitted Cannon had no right to dispute the giving of lhe fall. Now, the rules of the Grieco-Boman wrestling distinctly sets out that “ to constitute a fall two shoulders must touch the floor at the same time.” Eminent legal opinion has been given that under the terms of that rule Dunn was obliged to wrestle till he got an opportunity to turn over on his back. In support of this the same authority adds that it is plain Cannon was suffering lindef a disadvantage. Apart from the question of hurting a man, it is added, Cannon had the opportunity of wearing his man in a perfectly legitimate manner. There is plenty to be done, as Grteco-Boman wrestlers know, independently of severely hurting an oppeneht. Thus far, therefore, Cannon had no right to Claim the finishing of the bout. But he made a huge mistake when, after renewing the wrestling and being thrown by Dunn in the Grreco-Boman bout, he cavilled at the decision of the referee. His experience in these matters should have told him that once having agreed to a referee, he had no right to dispute his decision. It might have been fair or it might have been foul. That doesn’t effect the agreement. Mr Taylor was the referee, and what he did or said was “ final, binding, and conclusive without recourse of law.” This Was clearly set out in the articles to which Cannon had set his hand. Harry Dunn, therefore, was quite right to refuse to change the referee and in claiming the match. For the rest, it is not likely the public will ante up for this kind of thing again. When a man pays a sovereign, half-a-sovereign or a crown as the case may be, he wants to see something like the w'orth of his money. And he certainly didn’t get it in this affair For the future, these matches would be better wrestled in private—that is, unless the wrestlers can make up their mind to keep faith with the public.

Divorces of the World.

The following particulars as to the methods of securing divorces in different countries are interesting Siamese.—-The first wife may be divorced, not sold, as the others may be. She then may claim the first, third, and fifth child, and the alternate children are yielded to the husband.

Arctic Begion.—When a man desires a divorce he leaves the house in anger and does not return for several days. The wife understands the hint packs her clothes, and leaves. Tartars.—The husband may put at* ay his partner and seek another when it pleases him, and the wife may do the same. If she be ill-treated she complains to the magistrate, who, attended by the principal people, accompanies her to the house and pronounces a formal divorce. Chinese.—Divorces are allowed in all case of criminality, mutual dislikes, jealousy, incompatibility of temper, or too much loquacity on the part of the wife. The husband cannot sell his wife until she leaves him and becomes a slave to him by action of the law for desertion. A son is bound to divorce hia wife if she displeases his parents, Jews.—ln olden time the Jews had a discretionary power of divorcing their wives. Javans.—lf the wife be dissatisfied she can obtain a divorce by paying a certain sum.

Thibetans,—Divorces are seldom allowed unless with the consent of both parties—neither of whom can afterwards re-marry, Moors—lf the wife becomes the mother of a boy, she may be divorced with the consent of the tribe, and she can marry again. Abyssinians.—No form of marriage is necessary. The connection may be dissolved and renewed as often as the parties think proper. Siberians.—lf the man be dissatisfied with the most trifling acts of his wife, he tears her cap or veil from her head, and this constitutes a divorce.

Coreans.—The husband can divorce his wife, and leave her the charge of maintaining the children. If she proves unfaithful, he can put her to death.

Druse end Turkomen.—Among these people, if a wife asks her husband’s permission to go out, and he says “ Go,” without adding, “ but come back again she is divorced. Though both parties desire it, they cannot live together without being re-married.

Cochin-Chinese.—lf the parties choose to separate, they break a pair of chopsticks or a copper coin in the presence of witnesses, by which action the union is dissolved. The husband must restore to the wife the property belonging to het prior to her marriage. American Indians.—Among some tribes the pieces of stick given the witnesses of the marriage are burnt as a sign o* divorce. Usually new connections are formed without the old ones being, dissolved. A man never divorces his wife if she has borne him sons.