Dempsey Wills lawsuit

[HOUDINI563]

Here. Dempsey was found NOT GUILTY during the jury trial but loses the plaintiffs appeal. Can’t be any clearer:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...arRange&page=1

[Willie Pep 229]

Here. Dempsey was found NOT GUILTY during the jury trial but loses the plaintiffs appeal. Can’t be any clearer:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...arRange&page=1

So this article is saying that the case was tried in 1931 with a "not libel" verdict for Dempsey by a bias judge who was them overruled by an appellate court, ordered for retrial.

Was there then a retrial? I think there was.

That is very interesting. Any idea if there is an appellate coirt decision to read? I'll look too.

I think there is an appellate decision somewhere out there that holds Dempsey libel for 'breach of contract.'

I unfortunately can not be the one to produce that appellate decision.

But if there is no retrial then there is no Dempsey guilt. An appellate court can only order a retrial (put aside a verdict) it can't find Dempsey guilty.

So what gives? Was there a second trial?

[Willie Pep 229]

Funny finding myself the guy who is claiming Dempsey guilt.

But I am pretty certain (I thought it was proved to me by another poster) that Dempsey was found guilty of breaching a contract with Wills.


So now I am confused.

[kara]

Dempsey lost the suit. He had breached the contract he signed in 1926.

This was the only time he actually signed. The 1922 promises never got to final signatures.

1925 was the 'bounced check' mess with Fitzsimmons.

The 1926 signing was built off that early effort.

Dempsey lost. But was only ordered to pay $1500 to the plaintiff. (I just made up that number, but it was definitely less than $2000.)

The reason Dempsey got off lightly was because he had publicly breached the contract in early July 1926. This meant he could only be held libel for monies the plaintiff had spent up to that time.

The judge ruled that it was impossible for the plaintiff to claim a loss (damages) from a prize fight that never happened, so no $500,000 was in play. Just some early expenditures by the plaintiff.

I never read anything about Dempsey winning the suit because he made an honest jester to fight Wills in 1931.

I will definitely read it if you got something to read. Seriously, anything you got please post. I'm an interested party.

Good stuff as usual, Pep.

[Willie Pep 229]

Good stuff as usual, Pep.

Give TravestyNy some of the credit. Him and I beat up on eachother over the topic. It is an interesting story that starts in fall 1925 and plays out right up to the first Tunney fight a year later.

But I am curious about the trial Houndin's article is referring to. That's all new info to me.

[HOUDINI563]

Give TravestyNy some of the credit. Him and I beat up on eachother over the topic. It is an interesting story that starts in fall 1925 and plays out right up to the first Tunney fight a year later.

But I am curious about the trial Houndin's article is referring to. That's all new info to me.

Their was only one jury trial.

The jury trial was in 1931. As I posted Dempsey won that lawsuit when the judge stopped the trial and asked the jury to come back with a decision in Dempseys favor due to the plaintiff AGREEING with Dempseys offer to have the fight with Wills “right now”. The articles I posted are very clear.

A year later in 1932 the appeals court reversed the lower courts ruling and threw the case back for retrial. It was never retried.

Please read every article I posted in this thread. I also posted the appellate judges ruling.

[Willie Pep 229]

Their was only one jury trial.

The jury trial was in 1931. As I posted Dempsey won that lawsuit when the judge stopped the trial and asked the jury to come back with a decision in Dempseys favor due to the plaintiff AGREEING with Dempseys offer to have the fight with Wills “right now”. The articles I posted are very clear.

A year later in 1932 the appeals court reversed the lower courts ruling and threw the case back for retrial. It was never retried.

Please read every article I posted in this thread. I also posted the appellate judges ruling.

I did read everything you posted.

So you are saying Dempsey was never found guilty of breaching a 1926 contract.

I stand confused.

[HOUDINI563]

Their was only one jury trial.

The jury trial was in 1931. As I posted Dempsey won that lawsuit when the judge stopped the trial and asked the jury to come back with a decision in Dempseys favor due to the plaintiff AGREEING with Dempseys offer to have the fight with Wills “right now”. The articles I posted are very clear.

A year later in 1932 the appeals court reversed the lower courts ruling and threw the case back for retrial. It was never retried.

Please read every article I posted in this thread. I also posted the appellate judges ruling.

The history, not me, shows that the 1931 trial was stopped by the judge once the plaintiff accepted Dempseys offer to fight Wills now. The judge told the jury to come back with a verdict for Dempsey as his offer to fight Wills now fulfilled the contract.

Fast forward almost exactly one year later 1932 we see the verdict was appealed by the plaintiffs. The appellate judges decision threw the case back for retrial but it was never retried.

Unanswered questions are:

1). Did the promoters come up with financing during the height of the Depression? Did Dempsey reneg on his offer? What led to the plaintiffs asking for an appeal?

2). The case was never retried. Since the sum on the table was much less than in 1931 did Dempsey settle out of court rather than go to trial again or did the plaintiffs decide not to pursue due to the potential sum being so low?

Dempsey later stated that the Benton Harbor deal cost him over $100,000. Was this the out of court settlement? (If there was one). Or was this just court costs lawyer fees etc or a combination of both?

[travestyny]

The appeal sent the case back to rightfully calculate DAMAGES. It reversed a decision that threw out all financial damages because some of the damages could not be substantiated to the court's liking. The court document states in plain English that there was a clear breach of contract. I don't think there was another trial (at least I couldn't find one) likely because the damages that would be afforded weren't found to be worthy of proceeding with another trial. The best thing that was secured for the damaged side was the injunction that prevented Dempsey from fighting anyone except Wills in Chicago, which is why the Tunney fight had to be moved to Philly.

Here is an excerpt from the brief that makes it clear there was a breach, but that some items were not recoverable...





And here is another excerpt making it clear that there was a breach and some items were recoverable...





We've already been through this completely.

[travestyny]

Unanswered questions are:

1). Did the promoters come up with financing during the height of the Depression? Did Dempsey reneg on his offer? What led to the plaintiffs asking for an appeal?

2). The case was never retried. Since the sum on the table was much less than in 1931 did Dempsey settle out of court rather than go to trial again or did the plaintiffs decide not to pursue due to the potential sum being so low?

Dempsey later stated that the Benton Harbor deal cost him over $100,000. Was this the out of court settlement? (If there was one). Or was this just court costs lawyer fees etc or a combination of both?

1. Yes. We know according to the contract precisely when Dempsey was supposed to be paid, and we have the evidence that the money was there precisely when it was supposed to be.

2. I don't think we'll ever know if he settled out of court or if they dropped the matter. My guess is they dropped it because it seemed they weren't going to be able to get the substantial amount they were looking for.