▁binding ▁upon ▁this ▁Court ▁and ▁is ▁determin ative ▁of ▁the ▁present ▁motion . ▁A ▁pre lim inary ▁inj unction ▁should ▁not ▁be ▁awarded ▁in ▁any ▁case ▁where ▁the ▁proofs ▁leave ▁the ▁mind ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁in ▁serious ▁doubt ▁respect ing ▁the ▁pla int iff ' s ▁assert ed ▁right , ▁and ▁the ▁testim ony ▁and ▁aff id av its ▁submitted ▁for ▁and ▁against ▁the ▁present ▁application ▁do ▁not ▁establish ▁with ▁reasonable ▁certain ty ▁that ▁the ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁of ▁which ▁the ▁pla int iff ▁compla ins ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁ade qu ately ▁compens ated ▁at ▁law . ▁The ▁evidence ▁ad du ced ▁is ▁by ▁no ▁means ▁conclus ive ▁upon ▁the ▁question ▁whether ▁the ▁services ▁which ▁the ▁def endant ▁contract ed ▁to ▁render ▁were ▁so ▁unique ▁and ▁peculiar ▁that ▁they ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁performed ▁and ▁substantial ly ▁as ▁well ▁by ▁others ▁engaged ▁in ▁professional ▁ball ▁playing , ▁who ▁might ▁be ▁easily ▁be ▁obtained ▁to ▁take ▁his ▁place . ▁The ▁motion ▁for ▁a ▁pre lim inary ▁inj unction ▁is ▁denied ." ▁ ▁The ▁Brook lyn ▁correspond ent ▁for ▁The ▁Sport ing ▁News ▁wrote ▁that ▁the ▁court ' s ▁decision ▁did ▁not ▁change ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁" Mc Gu ire ▁played ▁the ▁Brook lyn ▁management ▁a ▁low ▁and ▁cow ard ly ▁trick ", ▁suggested ▁that ▁the ▁team ▁sue ▁Mc Gu ire ▁for ▁dam ages , ▁and ▁op ined ▁that ▁the ▁Brook lyn ▁public ▁did ▁not ▁care ▁" two ▁c ents ▁whether ▁Mc Gu ire ▁never ▁comes ▁back ." ▁ ▁In ▁ 1 9 1 4