Opinion ID: 1629022
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does Statute Exceed Delegated Power?

Text: Defendant contends that the instant ordinance exceeds in scope the power delegated by the legislature under sec. 66.051, Stats., to regulate gambling and gambling devices. [1] The asserted basis for this contention is that this statute is only applicable to gambling devices per se, and the instant pinball machine is not such device. This argument overlooks sub. (4) of the statute, which provides that nothing in the statute shall be construed to preclude cities and villages from prohibiting conduct which is the same or similar to that prohibited by chs. 941 to 947. Sec. 945.05, Stats., prohibits the dealing in gambling devices or machines and sec. 945.01 (3) defines a gambling machine as follows: A gambling machine is a contrivance which for a consideration affords the player an opportunity to obtain something of value, the award of which is determined by chance, even though accompanied by some skill and whether or not the prize is automatically paid by the machine. For reasons previously stated herein the instant pinball machine does afford the player an opportunity to obtain something of value, the award of which is determined by chance. Therefore, the contention that Milwaukee in enacting the ordinance exceeded the power delegated to it by sec. 66.051, Stats., is without merit. [2]