Court Opinion

ID: 9661345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:36:13.618526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:27.519667
License: Public Domain

Fairchild and Gordon, JJ.
(dissenting). We respectfully dissent. We are unable to agree with the opinion inso*257far as it determines that an increased score awarded to the player and the privilege of carrying it forward into a second game is a “valuable thing” under the ordinance. It is arguable that the machifte in question falls within that portion of the ordinance which proscribes devices in which money “may be staked.” However, the opinion of the majority does not rely thereon; instead, the decision rests upon the conclusion that the machine is one which rewards the player with something valuable.
While the player may get more pleasure from a higher score, such euphoria is not a thing of value, in our opinion. The hope of a high score may serve to induce a player to spend more money in playing the machine, but such temptation does not justify a conclusion that the machine dispenses an item of value.
The player may get more joy from participating in a game in which, through chance, he may receive a high score, but the amusement of so participating is not to be construed as a valuable prize. This would occur if he received a tangible gift or even extra balls or free plays. See State v. Lake Geneva Lanes, Inc., ante, p. 151, 125 N. W. (2d) 622.