Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0804-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ZESIGER, J,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 834
    AKRON (City) v. STOJANOVIC
    Municipal Court of Akron
    August 9, 1923
    Í97A. GAMBLING.
    Slot machine is “gambling device” (129) if element of chance enters play of operati .-n.
   ZESIGER, J,

Epitomized Opinion

Defendant was tried under a city ordinance prohibiting the keeping or exhibiting of a gambling levice and was found guilty. He had kept for use i slot machine which was operated by the insertion jf nickels by the player who would receive at times a package of confection or mints and a cer-;ain number of chips as the dial indicated. Defendant made a motion for a new trial. Held:

The rule is that whgre one who’ plays a slot machine stands to win or lose money, trade or checks sy chance, the machine is a gambling device. The .impression that so long as the player receives some-:hing of value in return for the money played the machine is within the law, is erroneous. Whenever ;he element of chance enters into the play and the flayer has the opportunity to receive something :or nothing, it comes within the provisions of the irdinance. Motion overruled.