THE CASE AGAINST MURPHY

Chronicle (Levin), 29 March 1947, Page 6

THE CASE AGAINST MURPHY

Following the application by the ■ Boxing Council in the Jones case the Council 's application to rescind the interim judgment in the Murphy case was then taken. Mr. Stevenson said it had been contended for Murphy on the original application that it was unlawful for the Council to suspeud . or purport to suspcnd Murphy 's licencc. This was supported by Murphy 's affidavit that he believed this to be so. However, the circumstances under which the licencc was suspended were set out in the affidavit of Aldridge relating to this partieular case wiiich he quoted. Mr. Stacey, for Murphy, said it was alleged that the substance of the matter at issue was as stated by Murphy that he did not receive any notice in writing of any offence against the rules as was required by rule 65, and therefore he had not had any opportunity of makifig a statement in defence. The issues were: Did he receive proper notice of the meeting? Did he receive notice of the charge against him? Did he have an opportunity -of being heard in his defence? The Council had no riglit to'say that. It

was in effect calling Murphy up to be questibned in a star chamber and if he did not attend it would deal with him as it liked. It must abide by its rules. There were three things in which the Council had failed. The first was that there should have been no doubt about the charge. The second was that it must have been proved. The third was that in sending the notice that it was holding an inquiry it should have been put in such words that the boxer would know that it really was an inquiry and that he had to attend. Anything that happened after the suspension on March 7 had no power today. It was m.erely an attempt to whitewash previous errors. If the Council had sent on March 4 the letter it dispatched on March 17 they would not be in Court that day. Mr. 3t. E. Harding, also for Murphy, said the question was one of contract. A boxer who asked for a licence no doubt contracted to submit himself to the rules of the issuing body. The New Zealand Boxing Association eleeted tlie Council and souglit by its rules to give the latter certain powers over persons who contracted with them. The kind of disput'e before the Court arose' from the the fact that the gentlemen who got eleeted to such a body were, apt to persuade theinselves they had more power than they actually had and were not always able to peTSuade the courts they possessed. The council had been •given information the reliability ot whieh could not be esamiued- iu tliese

proceedings, nor was there power to do so, and oh the strengtli of that it had asked Murphy to attend a meeting to assist it in "preliminary investigations". That letter was not sufficient notice of the fdct tliat the Council pro posed to hold an informal inquiry. Murphy. coiiid ndt be expeeted to be penalised for not atteuding in response to a request couched in such vaguc terms. • It was f ar from an explicit notice, but he did say he would attend a proper judiciai inquiry. Nonetheless, he was suspended and as a result ap plied for and secured an interim Injunction. The hearing will continue on Monday.