Court Opinion

ID: 9794777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:11:31.612254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:26.942123
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring).
I concur but deem it advisable to make these observations. Although I concede there is some justification for the distinction made in the instant case, based on- the difference in the statute discussed, I am not *33particularly fond of the nicety of distinction (sometimes referred to in less euphonious phrases) which is necessary to interpret “suppress” as not meaning or equivalent to “prohibit.” Therefore, I desire to add what, in my opinion, is a more fundamental and satisfactory ground for concluding that the ordinance is invalid.
It is .urged that these devices are so readily adaptable to gambling, that they are subject to interdiction under the police power. It is undoubtedly true that they may be easily used for gambling, but the fact that the legislature has provided that they may be licensed, taxed and regulated seems to indicate that the legislature did not regard them as evil per se. They, of course, can be used as games of skill and amusement only. They are only evil if put to an evil use. Unless some aspect of the devices themselves, or their manner of use, were regarded as in some way affecting the health, morals or welfare of the public, there would be no foundation upon which to base their prohibition under the police power, and it would be doubtful whether the city, or the legislature itself, could prohibit them any more than they could prohibit bowling or pitching horseshoes, or almost any other game one might mention, most of which readily accommodate themselves to gambling by those so inclined.