Criminal law — Gambling devices — Forfeiture — Mint vending machine — Ejection of tokens by chance — Convertibility of machines to eject coins — Words and phrases — Thing of value — Sufficiency of evidence.
1. In a proceeding under the Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 382, as amended by the Acts of March 26, 1923, P. L. 32, and April 7, 1925, P. L. 185, between the public authorities and the manufacturer and owner of machines seized as gambling devices while in the possession and use of lessees, to have the machines declared forfeited, such machines are properly held to be gambling devices and as such adjudged forfeited, where it appears that the machines are so constructed that if a coin is inserted, the player each time receives a package of mints but that the greater portion of the machine, as well as the most elaborate mechanism therein, is devoted to the delivery of tokens which the player might also receive in addition to the mints, and whether or not the player will receive any tokens and the amount of tokens he may receive does not depend upon the skill with which the apparatus is operated but is determined solely by chance, and especially where it appears that in one instance tokens received by a player were redeemed in cash by the one in possession of the machine and that all the machines are capable of conversion so as to eject coins as well as slugs. [450-62]
2. An apparatus is a gambling device where there is anything of value to be won or lost as the result of chance, no matter how small the intrinsic value. [456-7]
3. In a proceeding, between the public authorities and the manufacturer and owner of machines seized as gambling devices, to have the machines adjudged forfeited, the quality and quantum of evidence necessary to sustain a decree of forfeiture is less than that required under an indictment against a lessee upon a charge of setting up a gambling device, and it is sufficient that petitioner's evidence be such as to satisfy the court that the machines were employed and used for the purpose of unlawful gambling. [460-61]
Argued September 26, 1934.
PER CURIAM, November 26, 1934:
The opinion in this case of Judge CUNNINGHAM of the Superior Court is so full and comprehensive, concerning every feature of the controversy requiring discussion, that nothing additional to the statements therein contained need be said.
Upon that opinion the judgment and order of the Superior Court is affirmed.