WRESTLERS IN COURT.

NZ Truth, Issue 132, 28 December 1907, Page 6

WRESTLERS IN COURT.

Button Singh, and Gus Rennert Sue John Wren and George Cook for Breach of Contract Alleged. "Referee" Eagleson Decides Against ■'" '. v Plaintiffs, j > ■• ■ •'; ■ . _ ffl •;- There was a big muster of "sports"* at the Melbourne City Court recent-^ ly, when Judge Eagleson had before' him for decision as legal referee of claims m connection with, a wrestl-.: 'ing contest. The plaintiffs were the j invinciable Hindoo, Buttan Singh, and , the massive German wrestler, -.] .Gustav Rennert, and their claim was - made against John Wren, of Bourke- ' street, sportsman, and George Cook, of. Collins-street, maAager, the amount claimed was -as follows :— "To damages for breach of contract made on, September 24, ,1907, m consideration of the plaintiffs agreeing to engage m a wrestling match at. Wrens- Athletic Pavillion on October 10, and that you (the defendant) agreed to promote, advertise, and give use of the hall and accessoiW for such match." The statement also included the ' following ■itehis :— "T\ro trainers, £2 ; hire of; ■trainine . £2 ; dietary expenses '£2 ; ESTMA'f ED PROFITS, £250." The .first witness was William H. William?.;, who stated that, on behalf of Buttan Singh and. Rennert, he went to Cool: and' made arrangements for the match to take place under the defendant's auspices. Articles were drawn up m the presence: of Coble, and the two plaintiffs, and; these were; duly signed by Cook, the understanding being that plaintiffs were to. charge £25 if the, "gate" were below £100, and 33 per cent, if the receipts were above that sum. Subsequently it was intimated that the delendants did not intend to proceed with the match. .: "Williams, m reply to Barrister Ifotcliin, who; appeared for the plaintiffs, : said that he anticipated that' the gate money, if the match had taken place at Wren's Athletic Pavilion , -would have amounted to £120 6% £130. As - they could not get the Pavilion 'the. match was held at the Athletic Hall m . Exhibition-street. :.. Mr Wasley, for the defendants , conr .tended that the only damages that arose iiwould 'be between the price paid for the Athletic Hall and what : Would have been, paid ,for Wren's Pavilion., • /His Honor : If the men wanted a rs "match there was nothing to prevent 1 them 'getting,. another hall. "Mr Hotchin : Wren's Pavilion is a recognised "' place for such matches, and it wo f uld have^ drawn . a big crowd therW - , : His Honor : iPeople don't go to a : place of that kind to see the inside of the building. They go to see ' A DISPLAY OP SKILL' m boxing or wrestling. ...Witness 'Williams, continuing, said that the match took place oh November 8 at the Athletic Hall. The date first arranged was the day after Caulfield Cup Day, when there ought .to have • been a good house. JButtan , Singh had gone to a lot of ttouble-/to get himself ready for the match. .The: expenses were £20, the "gate" amounted to £20, and plaintiffs got £5 each. ■'; Mr Wasley : . For the last two yeatfs prof essionar wrestling has been at a low ebb ? :_For some time. there has: been nothing of any importance on. • Did not Wren say that he could; not. find i: out whether Rennert was.' training properly.- and for that rea-> -son he ■would have nothing to dos 'witft /the. match ? . '. ,- ; '.-. There' was some conversation - of" %7ia-t , sort, but I ;do .not remember i the exafct -words. Itriedto find out •WHERE 'RENNERTTWAS - TRMN- : »'' • s -TNG, " _ .: *but I&fCould not do -so. HjFUstav Rennerf, dne<>of thesplain-j •tiffs, said that he was interested m a side show Mvrath which he visited various towns, including Atrarat, and* gave exhibitions of weight-l}fting. ; ; came back to Melbourne- to^carry* out His engagement to wrestle with Buttan Singh, jon October '16, He ,gbt aj- f'spoqker"— a hail-fare ticket? rto cpme/'dowri^ He'kwas always m! .training. . • ,"'•'? - George *. William' -Cook", , t}h* of the. defendants, /stated -thatihej managed for Wren's Pavilion^ When^ the ! # agreement • was made, Rennert,} Who r was going up- country, 'arrang-i ed to- let him know, where; he wasi from time to time, but ire did not; so'so. Witness was satisfied Jjhat| Renneft Twas not training for,, {Chefo match, and he gave ».notice itp •plain-? [0s of ' ■•■■■■ : ._..; PEJOLININ^^TO'GOiON , with- the match.- He did -so^iiv? plenty, of; tiiiie. to enable "them' to? make .other arrangements. : An offer; was . made tb -Williams that he could/ ■have .the hair on another occasion for £10, and to manage it himself,, but this' arrangement- was not carried out. .■.*■" .His Honor safd the* evidence did'; not satisfy him that Williams was\ really acting, as agent for Rennert,. : but s,o far as that plaintiff was con-r e'erned- there would be judgment for -. defendants.' No doubt Williams was acting for Buttan Singh,. but so far as Cook was concerned there ,was no . personal liability on his behalf, as.he only represented Wren as his manager. There would therefore be judgment? for Cook as against Buttan Singh. The case resolved itself into as between Singh and Wren. Cook evidently was not satisfied that Rennert was training for ' the match, and told Williams so,- and also offered to allow the use of the. Pavilion for another night for £10, He (his Honor) thought that the second arrangement had been: substituted , for the first, and that it bad been-iagreed between the parties 'that the first arrangement should be off altogether. He therefore gave judgment for defendants with costs.