Court Opinion

ID: 9732792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:35:44.899812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:33.942997
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The Michigan Supreme Court has held, in Oatman v Port Huron Chief of Police, 310 Mich 57; 16 NW2d 665 (1944), that a coin operated pinball machine, which gives a player free plays only when that player achieves a sufficiently high score on the machine, is a gambling device. The ordinance in question specifically prohibits pinball *148machines. The ordinance is not vague or ambiguous. The ordinance in question allows bowling. This is not an unreasonable distinction.
As for the evidence in this case, the testimony showed that a small sign on the pinball machine offered free plays upon the attainment of a certain score. The prosecution proved its case. I would affirm.