Case ID: pa-super_151/html/0346-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kenworthey, j.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth v. A Certain Gambling Device (Cowell, Appellant.).
    Argued October 29, 1942.
    Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.
    
      Lemuel B. Schofield, with him Owen M. Burns and M. E. Graham, for appellant.
    
      Burton R. Laub, District Attorney, with him D. J. McLaughlin, Asst. District Attorney, for appellee.
    January 28, 1943:
   Opinion by

Kenworthey, j.,

The facts in this ease are identical in all material respects with the facts in Wigton’s Return, 151 Pa. Superior Ct. 337, and the cases were argued together.

The court below, largely on the basis of its interpretation of our decision in Urban’s Appeal, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 101, 24 A. (2d) 756, held the pin-ball machine here involved a device used for the purpose of gambling and declared it forfeit and directed it be destroyed.

What we have said in the Wigton Case demonstrates that we do not consider Urban’s Appeal controlling and that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the finding.

The order is therefore reversed, costs to be paid by the Commonwealth.