BOXING DISPLAYS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 121, 14 July 1911, Page 3

BOXING DISPLAYS.

A PERMIT INDISFENSIBLE. smith and kelly fixed. An interesting ease, bearing on the question of what Constitutes a boxing display within the meaning of the Police Offences Act, was heard at the Palmerston Magistrate's Court on Monday afternoon, before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., the police proceeding against Dave Smith and Arthur Kelly on charges of having, on June 26th and 27th, at Palmerston, engaged in a boxing contest in respect of which any of the provisions of the Police Offences Act, 1908, were not complied with.

Sub-Inspector Norwood conducted the prosecution, Mr W. L. Fitzherhert appearing for Smith and Mr H. It. Cooper for Kelly. The Sub-Inspector said that under section 57, of the Act, anyone giving a boxing exhibition without auhority from the police was liable to a penalty. The two defendants came hero with a vaudeville show—“Willis’ Caledonians.” About three days beforehand the local boxing association applied for a permit for a boxing exhibition to be given at the company’s entertainment. He forwarded the application to Inspector Wilson, but it should have been made some seven days before the exhibition was to take place, and for this and other reasons the Inspector would not issue a permit. The display took place nevertheless . Smith bad been prosecuted previously on the West Coast for a similar offence, but the information was dismissed as trivial. Since then the exhibitions had been continued.

Sergeant Willis stated, in evidence, that he attended the entertainment. An exhibition was given, on the first night, of ball-punching by Smith and Kelly. The proprietor then announced that an exhibition spar of three rounds would be given by Dave Smith, champion middle-weight of the world, and Arthur Kelly, champion lightweight of New South Wales. There was no ring; tiie boxers wore gloves, and gave a good scientific display of boxing pure and simple. Mr Willis was also on the stage, acting the part of the clown; be did not come between the combatants on the first night.

To Mr Fitzherhert: The exhibition was not a burlesque bn boxing. It was not nn open-glove exhibition. Willis came in at the finish with a bladder, with which ho hit Smith. Tiie display was not an imitation of boxing. The length of the programme was about two and' a quarter hours, of , which the boxing occupied four and a half or five minutes.

Mr Fitzherhert put in a press report of the legal proceedings at Greymonth, when the information was dismissed as trivial.

Cross-examined by Mr Cooper, Sergeant Willis stated that sparring was like boxing. The exhibitions conducted hy : the association . might hardly be called sparring, hut. regular boxing. Kelly would bo about two a stone lighter than Smith, and Right not lie worth more th°-\ half a minute against Smith. Witness would be surprised to know that the blows were rehearsed beforehand. To. Sub-Inspector Norwood: On the second night Willis came between the men in fun, but that was the only occasion on which ho intervened. Detective Sweeney, who also attended the performance, corroborated the evidence given by the sergeant.

To Mr Fitzherhert: He should say that the exhibition was a scientific one. ft did create laughter, but fie !to could not say that that was its object.

To Mr Cooper: There was no referee, nor were there any seconds. To the Sub-Inspector: ■ Would not expect to hear of two champions going round the Dominion giving a burlesque on boxing. Inspector Wilson, of Wanganui, stated that lie refused permission for a boxing display, as the application had not been made in accordance with the regulations. Mr Fitzherhert held that the performance did not come within the

scope of the Act. There was no ring, no seconds, nor referee. All the movements were rehearsed, and the blows were delivered with the open hand. David Smith, professional boxer, and one of the defendants, stated that he had been participating in the j performance for some time past.. It was merely an athletic display to show young men how to lit themselves for amateur work. To Mr Cooper: Kelly was his sparling partner. They rehearsed the principal blows, the “shilt,” lor instances, for the purpose of showing it in their performance. William 11. Hankins, secretary of the Manawatu Boxing Assoei itiou,' stated that he attended the performancov and did not see a “decent ri.ar” from start to finish. To Mr Cooper-:■. He had no hesitation in saying that no exhibition or boxing was given-. .Jock Willis, proprietor of the ‘‘Caledonians,” stated that he engaged (Smith and his sparring partner, Jvellv, for a vaudeville act on his New Zealand tour. The first part of the jilay was legitimate, comprising Dttll-piim-hing, skipping, and so on- alter which a training spar was give n, in \%!vivb witness took a comic part. Ho refused a permit in Cneymonm, olk-r----ed him by the Mayor because by accepting it he would have had to undertake ail the responsibilities connected with a regular boxing contest. Instead, he preferred to present a vaudeville act, for which he considered a permit was unnecessary. Harry I*. Muller, manager oi the Opera House, also gave evidence. Mr. Cooper submitted that the display given could not by any stretch oi tin- imagination, be called a boxing exhibition, and it was evident that such a “turn” was not in the con-

temptation of the Legislature v.mon the relevant section of the Police Offdncos Act was framed. Mr. Cooper called Arthur Kelly. Smith’s sparring partner, who said that all the blows were rehearsed, as Smith was much the heavier, and also cleverer boxer. His Worship said there was no doubt that the presence of W dlis was iutonddecl, to a certain extent, to create amusement. The display was also educational, but it came within the meaning of the Act, and defendants must he convicted. Jho next display coming round might show the necessity for this. Each of the defendants would he fined Ids. and costs 7s. on the first charge, and convicted and discharged on the second.