BOXER’S CLAIMS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26544, 20 August 1947, Page 8

BOXER’S CLAIMS

DEFAMATION ALLEGED FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD IMPROPER PRACTICE DENIED P.A. WELLINGTON, Aug. 19. There had been no discussion of an improper practice in an interview which had been held in his office, said George Israel Joseph, solicitor, when giving evidence in the case before Mr A. M. Goulding, S.M., in which Boswell Murphy, boxer, is proceeding against three defendants alleging defamation of character. Mr Joseph said he had read the affidavit made by Brosnan, one of the defendants, and the part which referred to what purported to have happened in his office during an interview with Brosnan and Jones was not true. Jones had not admitted in witness’s presence that in the fight with Murphy he “ lay down and received a £SOO bribe.” Shortly after the Jones-Murphy fight, witness said, Jones and Brosnan came to him. Previously he had acted for Brosnan, but he knew Jones only by repute. They had discussed certain matters in regard to Jones’s contracts and about arranging his finances. There had been a general discussion about boxing, but no discussion about improper practice. Brosnan did not have a large part in the discussions. He seamed to be there because he desired to help Jones. Asked by Mr E. F. Rothwell, counsel for Brosnan, why he did not claim privilege as a solicitor, witness said he was not giving evidence on the interview between a client and himself. What was suggested to have taken place had not occurred. Asked if he had made notes or diary entries of what had been said, witness said he had not. Question of Bribe Mr Rothwell then said that Brosnan had done so, and these referred to Jones admitting in witness’s presence that there had been a £SOO bribe. Witness said that was not true. If Brosnan and Jones confirmed the statements in the affidavit, then they were incorrect. Percy J. Galvin, Murphys manager, said in evidence that he had occasional bets on Murphy but did not bet on “ outside ” boxers. He had taken a £2O bet with Patrick’s manager McQuillan. that Murphy would still be on his feet by the tenth round—that was a big bet for him. He had a similar bet on the first fight between Murphy and Jones. The suggestion that “he had been on for hundreds, was false. He did not bet with bookmakers on boxing “ I have never known Murphy to bet,” added Galvin. . Questioned about his relations with G P Aldridge, late secretary of the New Zealand Boxing Association. Galvin said he had found Aldridge firm. He gave the impression that he would like to have a say in a P™,’ fessional boxer’s movements. Witness referred to Vic. Patrick coming to New Zealand to fight Murphy He said W. Ingram, a former radio commentator. who had bec °me s PorG editor of the Southern Cross was agent for Stadiums Limited, of Sydney, and had been partly responsible for Patrick, who was under contract to Stadiums Limited, coming to New Zealand. Ingram, Galvin said, had taken the view in his report of the Patrick-Murphy fight that Patrick won practically every round. Galvin saia he did not think Ingram knew anything about boxing. Stadiums Limited would not want Patrick to be beaten because it would lessen his drawing power in Australia. Australian Offer Declined Galvin said Ingram had endeavoured to sign Murphy for a fight m Aus tralia, his opponent to be Tommy Burns. This was not a S re^° L Murphy had already tt a \^lfev ments to fight for the Hutt Valley Association and a trip to Austraha would have interfered with tnese plans. When the fight with Jones arranged, witness added that mgram published statements to the effect that Jones would not be a worthy opponent and that Jones was a freak. 1 At a later stage in his evidence, Gal vin stated that dngram said he thought the first Murphy-Jones fight was The*hearing was adjourned until tomJusTbefore the court rose Mr Rothwell said he had endeavoured to investigate the circumstances ot an assault alleged to have been made on Monday night on a witness whom he intended to call. The facts about the injuring of the man appeared to be correct 8 but there appeared to be no suggestion that they referred to the Pr Mr n w Ca j. e Stacey, counsel for Murnhv said he was pleased Mr Rothwell had’ made the statement that there was no suggestion that the alleged assault was connected with this case.