The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-12-15
PLAIN PENNY GAMBLING
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICIAL
OPINION ON SLOT MACHINES.
Statute Explicitly Covers the Case,
Judge Cox to the Contrary Not
withstanding.

Since Police Judge Charles Cox, of this
city, decided that slot machine is legiti-
mate so long as a stick of chewing gum or
any other thing of value is given for every
coin dropped in, these devices for separat-
ing people from their money have come into
use again in all cities of the State Yester-
day the attorney generals office rendered
opinion directly contrary to the Cox de-
cision, upon an inquiry from the president
of the Jeffersonville Board of Police Com
missioners. The opinion is as follows:
THE statute of Indiana with regard tc
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, schutfle
board faro or keno bank, nine-pin or ten
pin alley wheel of fortune, or any gambling
apparatus. device. table or machine of any
kind or description under any denomina-
ton or name whatever; or keeps or ex-
hibits any billiard table, bagatelle table.
pigeon hole table, or pool table, for the pur-
pose of betting or gaming:, or allows the
same to be used for any such purpose, shall
be fined not more than 800 nor less than
$25, to which may be added imprisonment
in the county Jail not more than six months
a aSf less 'han thirty Gays II > 1854 Se''
''This statute explicitly covers the use of
slot machines, except for legitimate pur
poses. such as the sale of articles of uni
form value for a uniform price. II such
machines give to one purchaser articles or
other they are unquestionably gambling de-
vices 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 arti-
cleS 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
responsibility, and ] refer you to the fol-
lowing cases: Loiseau VS.. State (Ala.), %.
Sec. 1873: Kolshorn VS.. State, 81 Ga, 343; %
S. E., S29; Commonwealth VS.. Lansdale, SO
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 G.. 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 Davisl called at the ola
First National Bank while the deal was
pending between that institution and the
Indiana Banking Company and asked
Messrs. New and Wright II tnere were any
skeletons in the closets of the bank, or II
there was anything rotten about IT.. MT.
Davis had said that when he asked TINS
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 in
formed Mr.. Morrison, of the Indiana Bank
ing Company, as 70 the snortage OF
matter as fully he was able to at the
time.
The attorneys for the defendants think
they will get in all their testimony ny TINS is
rebuttaI. 1t is expected the case will be
finished by Christmas.