State v. Business Men's Club
Missouri Court of Appeals
Quo Warranto. (1) The contests staged under the auspices of respondent corporation were prize fights. State v. Patton, 64 N. E. 850; Seville v. State of Ohio, 15 L. R. A. (Old) 516; Commonwealth ex rel.
Read the full summary
Quo Warranto. (1) The contests staged under the auspices of respondent corporation were prize fights. State v. Patton, 64 N. E. 850; Seville v. State of Ohio, 15 L. R. A. (Old) 516; Commonwealth ex rel. Pratt v. McGovern, 66 L. R. A., 280; State v. Purtell, 43 Pac. 783; People v. Pioncan, 80 N. Y. Supp. 929. (2) The respondent, “The Business Men’s Athletic Club,” is a mere subterfuge and a scheme organized and conducted for the purpose of evading the law which prohibits the giving of public sparring or boxing exhibitions. State ex inf. Hadley y. Rose Hill Pastime Athletic Club, 121 Mo. App.…
1Concurrence
CONCURRING OPINION.
FARRINGTON, J.
The prosecuting attorney of Greene county instituted this proceeding by quo warranto in this court against the respondent which is a corporation organized and existing under Chapter 33,, Article X, Revised Statutes of 1909, alleging, among other things (which I do not deem it necessary to discuss), that respondent was voilating section 4681, Revised Statutes of 1909, which is as follows: “Sparring and boxing. — Any person who shall engage in any public sparring or boxing exhibition, or who shall aid, abet or assist in such exhibition, or who shall furnish any…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. QuinnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- State ex inf. Hadley v. Meramec Rod & Gun ClubMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Commonwealth v. MackMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- State ex inf. Hadleyy v. Rose Hill Pastime Athletic ClubMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- State ex inf. Hadley v. Kirkwood Social Athletic ClubMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906