Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
PLAIN PENNY GAMBLING ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICIAL OPINION ON SLOT MACHINES. Statute Explicitly Covers the Case, Judge Cox to the Contrary Notwithstanding. Since Police Judge Charles Cox, of this city, decided that a slot machine is legitimate so long as a stick of chewing gum or any other thing of value is given for every coin dropped in, these devices for separating people from their money have come into use again in all cities of the State. Yesterday the attorney general's office rendered an opinion directly contrary to the Cox decision, upon an inquiry from the president of the Jeffersonville Board of Police Commissioners. The opinion is as follows: "The statute of Indiana with regard to gambling devices is as follows: 'Whoever keeps or exhibits for game, or to win or gain money or other property, any gaming table, Jenny Lind table, roulette, schuffle board, faro or keno bank, nine-pin or tenpin alley, wheel of fortune, or any gambling apparatus, device, table or machine of any kind or description, under any denomination or name whatever; or keeps or exhibits any billiard table, bagatelle table, pigeon hole table, or pool table, for the purpose of betting or gaming; or allows the same to be used for any such purpose, shall be fined not more than $100 nor less than $25, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months nor less than thirty days.'-R. S. 1894, Sec. 2181. "This statute explicitly covers the use of slot machines, except for legitimate purposes, such as the sale of articles of uniform value for a uniform price. If such machines give to one purchaser articles of a greater value than those bought by another they are unquestionably gambling devices within the statute, and this is true whether some small article of value, as, for instance, a stick of chewing gum, is given to each contributor, or not. If articles of varying values may be obtained the machine is undoubtedly a gambling device within the law. This has been recently repeatedly decided by courts of the highest respectability, and I refer you to the following cases: Loiseau vs. State (Ala.), 22, Sec. 138; Kolshorn vs. State. 97 Ga., 343; 23 S. E., 829: Commonwealth vs. Lansdale. 98 Ky., 664; State vs. Torphy, 66 Mo. App. 343." F. A. W. Davis Again Contradicted. In the suit of the receiver of the Indiana Banking Company against John C. New and John C. Wright, the latter was called to the witness stand yesterday. Mr. Wright emphatically denied the statement of F. A. W. Davis that he (Davis) called at the old First National Bank while the deal was pending between that institution and the Indiana Banking Company and asked Messrs. New and Wright if there were any skeletons in the closets of the bank, or if there was anything rotten about it. Mr. Davis had said that when he asked this question Messrs. New and Wright held up their hands and offered to be sworn, at the same time asserting there was nothing wrong with the bank. Mr. Wright in his testimony declared no such interview ever took place. The witness at no time talked with Mr. Davis concerning the negotiations between the two banking institutions. Mr. Wright further testified that he fully informed Mr. Morrison, of the Indiana Banking Company, as to the shortage of Slaughter and Miller, and explained the matter as fully as he was able to at the time. The attorneys for the defendants think they will get in all their testimony by this evening. After this will come evidence in rebuttal. It is expected the case will be finished by Christmas.
