Two men. One baseball. And a small fortune in lawyers' fees trying to sort out the mess

In the Old Testament, it was two women fighting over a baby. In 21st-century America, the most contentious, most frustrating, most stupidly wasteful argument to come before a court concerns a famous baseball and two men who have spent a small fortune fighting over whom it belongs to.

The ball was knocked into the stands at San Francisco's Pac Bell Park a year ago and immediately entered baseball legend because it gave the hitter, Barry Bonds, his record-breaking 73rd home run of the season. Baseball convention has it that the spectator who manages to catch a home-run ball gets to keep it. In this case, there was an unseemly scrum to claim ownership, and the argument is still raging, not least because the ball is estimated to be worth $1.5m (£960,000).

Yesterday, the case reached court in San Francisco and adjudication is expected to take two weeks, as witnesses, official scorers, accident reconstruction experts, legal scholars, and former major league umpires take the stand to offer their opinions. Claimant number one is Alex Popov, a 38-year-old restaurant owner from Berkeley, the first to catch the ball, holding it for 45 seconds, shows a videotape that is likely to play a leading role in court. Claimant number two is 37-year-old Patrick Hayashi, of Sacramento, who was the man clutching the ball after the scrum was over. The key issue is whether Mr Popov really caught and held the ball, or whether it can legitimately be said he dropped it.

His lawyers, who have already pocketed $100,000 of his money, claim he was mugged, pure and simple. They say a win by Mr Hayashi will effectively herald open season on every home-run ball that flies into the stands, and turn professional baseball into an amateur wrestling spectacle.

The case has been discussed in law schools and was reconstructed for a television programme called Celebrity Justice, prompting 98 per cent of viewers who responded to side with Mr Popov.

Legal experts have expressed incredulity that the case has come to court at all, the result of stubbornness, and a refusal on both sides to consider a settlement.