PRIZE-FIGHT. A public prize-fight is an indictable offence. No concurrence of wills can justify a public tumult and alarm ; there fore, persons who voluntarily engage in a prize-fight and their abettors are all guilty of assault ; 4 C. & P. 537; Poll. Tort 186, n. ; 1 Cox, C. C. 177 ; 2 Bish. C. L. § 535. Prize fights are unlawful, and all persons guilty of aiding and abetting a prize-fight are guilty of an assault; 8 Q. B. Div. 534. See, also, Com. v. Barrett, 108 Mass. 302 ; Sullivan v. State, 67 Miss. 350, 7 South. 275.
To constitute prize-fighting there must be an expectation of reward to be gained by the contest or competition, either to be won from the contestant or to be otherwise awarded, and there must be an intent to in flict some degree of bodily harm on the con testant; People v. Taylor, 96 Mich. 576, 56 N. W. 27, 21 L. R. A. 287.
If two persons go out to fight with their fists, by consent, and do fight with each oth er, each is guilty of an assault, although there is no danger or ; Com. v. Coll berg, 119 Mass. 350, 20 Am. Rep. 328, dis agreeing with State v. Beck, 1 Hill (S. C.) 363, 26 Am. Dec. 190; it is no bar to an ac tion for assault that the parties fought with each other by _mutual consent, but such con sent may be shown in mitigation of the dam ages ; Adams v. Waggoner, 33 Ind. 531, 5 Am. Rep. 230; one may recover in an action for assault and battery, although he agreed to fight with his adversary ;. for such agree ment to break the peace being void, the max im volenti non fit injuria does not apply ; Bell v. Hansley, 48 N. C. 131; mere voluntary presence at a fight does not, as a matter of law, necessarily render persons so present guilty of an assault, as aiding and abetting in such fight; 8 Q. B. Div. 534 (4 C. & P. 537, distinguished) ; semble, mere presence of a person at a prize-fight affords some evidence for the consideration of a jury of an aiding and abetting in such fight ; 8 Q. B. Div. 534.
To constitute a prize-fight it is not essen tial that the fight should be with the naked fist or hand, but the fact that a contest was had with gloved hands, as also the kind, size, weight, and other characteristics of the gloves so used, may be looked to In connec tion with the other evidence in the case in determining whether a contest was a prize fight, or merely a sparring or boxing exhibi tion without _prize or reward to the victor ; State v. Moore, 4 Ohio N. P. 81.
Prize-fighting was not a distinct offence at common law • and participants were in dictable and punishable for assault, riot, or affray; 8 Q. B. Div. 534; 3 C. & M. 314; 2 C. & P. 234; Sullivan v. State, 67 Miss. 350, 7. South. 275.
A spectator at a sparring match is not partieepe erinthas ; there is nothing unlaw ful in sparring, unless the men fight until they are so weak that a dangerous fall is likely to be the result of the game. There fore, except in the latter case, death caused by an injury received during a sparring match does not amount to manslaughter; 10 Cox, C. C. 371.
In Arkansas equity has power to issue an injunction to restrain a prize-fight advertised to take place within its jurisdictional limits ; 35 Am. Law Reg. & Rev. 100 ; the state ob tained an injunction on the ground that a cor poration was misusing its franchise and maintaining its property as a nuisance, al though the act complained of was a crime; 143 Ind. 98, 40 N. E. 914, 28 L. R. A. 727, 52 Am. St. Rep. 407. A private citizen can not sue to enjoin a prize fight unless he suf fers some special injury from it; Louisville Athletic Club v. Nolan, 134 Ky. 220, 119 S. W. 800, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1019.
Evidence is not admissible to prove that such matches are common and harmless amusements, practised in the colleges of this country, nor was there error in refusing to allow the jury to examine the boxing gloves used by the respondent ; State v. Burnham, 56 Vt. 445, 48 Am. Rep. 801.
An agreement to engage in a prize-fight is a conspiracy to commit a crime; and the declarations of either party with reference to the common object, or in furtherance of the criminal design, while engaged in its prosecution, are competent evidence against the other, though the agreement was made through backers or other representatives of the principals and the latter were unknown to each other; Seville v. State, 49 Ohio St. 117, 30 N. E. 621, 15 L. R. A. 516.
Whether a pugilistic encounter is a fight or boxing exhibition, is not a question upon which expert testimony is admissible on the trial of an indictment for engaging in a prize-fight. The question must be decided by the jury upon the evidence of what ac tually took place, under proper instructions from the court, and not upon the opinions of professional pugilists, and others expe rienced in such combats, or the rules adopted by associations for conducting such contests; Seville v. State, 49 Ohio St. 117, 30 N. E. 621, 15 L. R. A. 516; but it has also been held to be a question of law; People v. Tay lor, 96 Mich. 576, 56 N. W. 27, 21 L. R. A. 287.
Statutes prohibiting prize-fights have been passed in nearly all the states.
By statute it is even made criminal for inhabitants of a state by previous agree ment made in the state to leave the state and engage in a fight outside of its limits; Coro. v. Barrett, 108 Mass. 302.