Case ID: del_32/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rice, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State vs. Patrick Kelleher.
    Gaming — Metal Discs Paid by Slot Machine are “Coins” Within Statute.
    Metal discs, paid by slot machine in which coin has been deposited, which were accepted by keeper of machine in payment of merchandise, are “coins,” within Rev. Code 1915, § 3574, prohibiting keeping, maintenance, or exhibition of slot machines issuing coins.
    
      (May 14, 1924.)
    
      Rice, J., sitting.
    
      Clarence A. Southerland, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
    
      Philip L. Garrett for defendant.
    Court of General Sessions for New Castle County,
    May Term, 1924.
    Indictment for violating the provisions of Section 3574, Rev. Code 1915, prohibiting the keeping, managing, maintaining or exhibiting of slot machines.
    No. 30,
    May Term, 1924,
    The indictment originally contained four counts, but the first and second counts were abandoned by the State.
    The third count of the indictment alleged that the defendant, Patrick Kelleher, late of Wilmington Hundred, in New Castle County, on the 18th day of April of the present year, did unlawfully keep a certain device, to wit, a slot machine, by which the dropping of coins into a slot in said machine then and there caused coins to issue from said machine. The fourth count alleged that the defendant did keep a certain device, to wit, a slot machine, by which the placing of coins into a slot in said machine, with other action on the part of the person so placing such coins into said slot, to wit, by such person pulling or moving^a certain lever of said machine, then and there caused coins to issue from said machine.
    
      Section 3574, Rev. Code 1915, the statute under which this indictment was found, provides:
    “The use of slot machines or other devices by which the placing or dropping of coins into slots, holes or crevices, with or without other action on the part of any person, causes coins to issue from such machine, shall be deemed and considered gambling under Section 17 of Article 2 of the Constitution of Delaware, and any person or persons, or agents, employee or representative of any firm or corporation who shall keep, manage, maintain or exhibit such machine or other device shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,” etc.
    In support of the allegations in the indictment the State claimed that the defendant on the day and time alleged, kept two slot machines in his place of business in the City of Wilmington, in this County and State; that certain metal discs issued or dropped from said machines when certain specified coins were inserted in a slot or opening made for that purpose in each of them and a lever thereon was pulled,- pushed, or otherwise manipulated, and that the defendant treated each of such discs, in the purchase of merchandise from him as of the value of five cents.
    None of these facts were denied by the defendant. He claimed, however, th^t the machines kept by him were not within the prohibition of the statute above referred to.
   Rice, J.,

charged the jury in part, as follows:

The main question presented to you for your determination is whether the coins issued by this device are coins within the meaning and intent of the statute; the defendant contending that they are not.

In Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, a coin is defined to be:

“A piece of metal stamped with certain marks and made current at a certain value.”

In this case it appears from the evidence that the metal discs issued by the machine were given a certain value by the defendant in that he permitted merchandise to be purchased with them, each disc in such purchase being given the value of five cents.

I, therefore, am of the opinion, and so charge you, that the coins issued by the machine are within the meaning and intent of the word “coins” as used in the statute, and that the issuance of the metal discs in place of money is a mere subterfuge in an attempt to avoid the provisions of this statute.

Therefore, if you believe that the defendant did unlawfully keep the device admitted in evidence, which did, by the dropping of coins into a slot in said machine then and there cause coins, as the word has been defined to you, to issue from said machine, and you further believe that beyond a reasonable doubt, your verdict should be guilty, etc.