The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-17
SLOT MACHINES REMAIN
JUDGE COX FINDS THEY DO NOT vIO-
LATE GAMBLING LAWS.
"Stick of Wax Feature, He Thinks,
ExemDts Them from the Came
Of-Chance Stigma.

The case against P. J. OMeara and
Eugene Spangler. charged with violating
the gaming laws in operating and playing
a penny-in-the-slot machine, was dismissed
in Police Court yesterday morning. The
decision Of Judge Cox in the case was
against the state and victory for the
slot-mackine men. Immediately after the
decision was made known Police Superin-
tendent Quigiey ordered OMeara's slot ma
chine returned to him.
The court, in summing up the case COM
mented on the claim of OMeara that the
machine was kept by him, not as a gam
bling device, but as a means-a device-for
selling goods. The evidence showed that
for each one cent expended the player re-
celves in turn piece of chewing gum. And
In addition to the gum he may receive one
or more cigars of the ordinary retail price
of cents if certain named combinations of
tho cards in the machine result from the
manipulation. Spangler inserted five one
cent pieces in the slot, and each time re-
ceived piece of gum and one cigar.
Judge Cox held that the question pre-
sented was an entirely new one and a diff
f1cult proposition to solve He recalled
cases, however, that seemed to point the
way to lawful decision of the question
under consideration. He said he had
searched the law, but had been unable to
find any authority that would justify any
other conclusion than the one reached in de-
Gliding against the state.
Our Supreme Court" said Judge Cox,
has decided that If one person purchases
an article of merchandise from another,
agreeing with that other to pay him double
the retail price if an approaching election
shall result one way, and to pay him moth
ing If it shall result the contrary way, the
transaction is violation of such law as
Section 2176. 1t has also decided that If the
purchaser agree TO pay only the actual re-
tail value or nothing, according as the cleo
ton may result, the law is not violated.
Wagner VS.. State, 63 Ind, $50.
I'm the cases here O'Meara could not win
under any circumstances. nor could Spangler
constitute transaction. gaming or wager
ing. Both parties to it must risk the chance
of winning and losing.
THE most complete and clearest DEN
milton of a gaming or wagering contract
that have been able to find is the follow
ing from the opinion of Hawkins j., in the
case of Garlic VS.. Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company L. r. g. O. B., 1892, 2. 400:
persons, processing to hold opposite views
touching the issue of future uncertain
event eventually agree that, dependent upon
the determination of that event, one shall
win from the other and that other shall pay
or hand over to him a sum of money or
other stake; neither of the contracting par
ties having any other interest in that con-
tract than the sum or stake he Will so win
or lose, there being no other real consider
alton for the making of any such contract
by either of the parties. 1T is essential 10
a wagering contract that each party may
under ii either win or lose, whether he VIII
win or lose being dependent on the issue
of the event and, therefore, remaining I'M
certain until that issue is known. If either
Of the parties may win, but cannot lose. or
may lose, but cannot win, 1t IS not
wagering contract