Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1916-02-27
The Public
Safety ValOe
Editor Times-Recorder:


Here is Observer again with a lit
tie more dope" on the subject of the
operation of clot machines, lotteries,
etc. Thursday reference was made to
what the Court of Appeals has declar-
ed was the law. Today decisions Of
the Supreme Court are given:
The Supreme Court of Georgia, in
the case of Meyers VS.. State, 112 Ca,
Page 20, declares: "a merchant who
gives to designated class of custom
ers an opportunity to secure by lot
or chance any article of value addi-
tional to that for which such custom
ers have paid, violates the provisions
of Section 407 of the Penal Code which
declares that no person shall keep,
maintain, employ or carry on any lot.
terry in this state, or other scheme or
device for the hazarding of any money
or valuable thing"
| In this case the accused was a
wholesale and retail dealer in Cigars
ard Chewing gum. He operated a
nickel slot trade machine, which was
/ operated as follows: "a nickel placed
in the slot, handle is pulled down, a
wheel within the machine revolves, and
/ when it comes to a standstill or stop,
! the number of cards constituting a
hand" in a game of poker are exhih-
| tied. The person depositing the nickel
is entitled to cigar or package Of
chewing gum, each valued at five cents,
and in addition thereto to a prize, &C
cording to the hand displayed The
highest prize being one hundred cigars
or packages of chewing gum for a
f"royal fiush," and the lowest, two of
either commodity for two jacks or a
better pair. The use of the machine
! is entirely voluntary to the customer,
and the same is operated as an induce
ment to trade, the result being that for
every cigar sold through the machine
tile accused gets about four cents, in
stead of five cents, and about the same
price for chewing gum, but on account
Of the operation of the machine, the
amount of business done is largely in
creased"
ANY scheme or device operated by
person, by which one participates
therein might either lose the money
invested or get more than his moneys
worth, the operator retaining the
money so lost, is a scheme or device
for the hazarding of money, within
the meaning of the section of the penal
code above quoted"
After citing numerous instances or
similar schemes and devices such as
slot machines, the court includes as
follows: From the authorities above
cited, it is clear that the accused in
| tie present case, if not guilty Of aper-
ating lottery, was undoubtedly
guilty of maintaining scheme or de-
vice of a similar nature thereto"
In the case of DeFlorin VS. The State
121 Ca, page 593, the Supreme Court
holds: "a suit club whose members
pay to a tailor one dollar per week,
and which holds drawings, as a result
of which the member holding the lucky
number, receives from the tailor a
tsrit of clothes and then ceases to be
q member of the club, is scheme in
the nature of lottery. This is so, al
though an unlucky member who con-
tirues to pay his dollar weekly for
thirty weeks is entitled to thirty
dollar suit of clothes regardless of the
result of the drawing"
There are many other decisions
which might be quoted, but this will
suffice. Not only is the person who
operates and maintains the slot ma
chine, or the gift enter prize, guilty Of
violation of the Penal Laws, but the
Iperson who plays it is also guilty. OF
course the fact that the merchants and
the lotteries now being operated in
our streets may not know that they
are violating the laws against gaming,
lit is true nevertheless and Observer