view raw text
W. M. CAIN LOSES JOCKEY GARNER. Frankfort. Ky.. April 28. — The injunction granted by the Fayette Circuit Court restraining Mack Earner, noted lightweight jockey, from riding for any owner or iierson except W. M. Cain, was dissolved Wednesday by Chief Justice Miller, of the Apellate Court. The court held that as Garner was under the age of 21 years when his father made the contract with Cain for Garners services as an exercise boy and jockey, that he was not bound by it. It seems that Garners parents had become separated and divorced when the elder earner made the contract with Cain for the boys services, by which the lad was to receive 5 a month the first year. 5 the second, and 0 the third. Notwithstanding this contract. Mrs. Garner, mother of the lad. had been awarded the custody of her children by the Iowa Circuit Court, and appointed the lads guardian. Garner began work for Cain at Butte, Mont., and developed so rapidly that in two years he was the foremost lightweight jockey U America. Cain and others testified that Garners services were easilv worth 0,000 for the last eighteen months of the contract. While at El Paso in 1914. however. Cain discovered that earner intended to enter into a contract with James L. Holland for his services. and did later enter into this contract at a salary of 00 per month, payable to his mother. The injunction was secured during last springs meeting at Lexington. The court hel.l that the contracts witli the father and the contract with the mother were not binding on the boy. One of the most difficult problems was to solve in this case was to whom the boy really owed services, as the mother and father were remarried after their divorce and after the contracts were made. Judge Miller said the only question involved was how far Mack Garner was bound by his contract with Cain. It was not an indenture of apprenticeship, and his father was not a party in interest to the contract. It was Macks contract and he was an infant. "An executory contract made by a father for the personal services of his son may be avoided by the son at his election." he ruled.
