The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-02-05
MAY HAVE THE
MACHINES, BUT
NOT FOR USE
Nickel = in Slot Ma
chimes Released.
DECISION AGAINST LEES
Justice Groezinger Orders the Return
of the Property, but Holds Thew
Cannot Be Used for
Gaming.

Justice G. c. Groezinger decided vester-
day that the nickel-in-the-slot machines
seized and held by Chief of Police Lees
must be returned to the owners. The de-
clsloh recltes that the machine is a
gambling device, but that there is no law
IN TINS state which authorizes the police
or any person to seize gambling devices.
Having been seized there is no law which
authorizes their destruction.
Many authorities are cited In which n
is iald down that person cannot be de-
prlVed OF any property, not even gambling
devices, until a judicial tribunal has aid.
judged them to be such, and that such
property cannot be DESTROYED until a fter
the defendant has had his dav in court
Ihey also hold that where no law exists
auIn3Tlzlng a magistrate to order prop
erty destroyed, 1t cannot be done. nor can
1t be seized unless there is q law an
thoriZing such seizure,
The mere possession of this machine
without an intent to commit a crime is
no oHense- AT common law the PLAYING
OF cards and dice, when practiced limo.
Gently ana as a recreation, is not I'M
lawful or punishable as an offense
Inc questions involved were as to the
oWnershop OF the machines, and whether
Ghlet Lees could seize and destroy them
Judge COOK, in a recent case, decided that
machines in which cigars are offered
could not be suppressed. In that case the
owners were arrested under the lottery
laws and not on the ground that they
1t is a matter of common notorietv that
Police Commissioner NJ. A. Gunst is in
terested in the corporation selling the ma
chimes used in the cigar stands through
out the city.
The following sweeping clause in the
decision shows how little power the no
lice have to destroy devices for gambling.
Counsel for defendant also claims that
this machine is conJraband, and defend
ant has e right to seize and destroy it
of Police Of this city does not possess.
nor does any other human being within
the city and county possess it, as is clear
ly established by the foregoing authori-
ties.
1.-The court has personal knowledge Of
the fact that this sort of a machine. as
well as the cigar machine, is H. great
use in this city. The latter's use ia nere
mitted through some decision by our SUI
perior Court, and yet this cigar machine
is just as much gambling device as the
machine under consideration"
The decision continues:
Irrespective of the question as to who
reason why the owners (the plaintiffs
in this action should not have possession
Of 1t. They cannot use it for gambling
purposes, nor can any other person use
1t for that purpose. If they do hey are
amenable to the law and punishable un-
der 1t.
There is ample opportunity afforded at
the present time to have the proper laws
passed by calling the matter to the at
tention of the Legislature. l coincide in
the language of his Honor Carroll Cook
in the case of the People VS.. Deutsch.
that courts must take the law as it is
polate something into a statute than to
leave something out. If our laws respect
ing the seizure, detention and destruction
of gambling devices are defective. it is
for the legislative branch of the Govern
ment to remedy the defect or pass the
necessary statute"