Commonwealth v. Mihalow

10 Citing cases

  1. State v. Wiley

    232 Iowa 443 (Iowa 1942)   Cited 21 times
    In State v. Wiley, 232 Iowa 443, 3 N.W.2d 620, another game was awarded if at the end of the first a certain score was registered.

    The court held it applied to a pinball machine regardless as to whether there was a pay-off or not. A case which may be interpreted as holding that a free game upon a device of this nature is not a thing of value is Commonwealth v. Mihalow, 142 Pa. Super. 433, 16 A.2d 656; but see Urban's Appeal, 148 Pa. Super. 101, 24 A.2d 756. [2] State ex rel. Manchester v. Marvin, supra, is logical and sound and enunciates the rule of the great majority of modern decisions of courts of this country, many of which expressly follow it or cite it with approval.

  2. 83 Op. Att'y Gen. 92

    83 Op. Att'y Gen. 92 (Ops.Md.Atty.Gen. 1998)

    To meet this definition, the machine or apparatus itself must, by its operation, determine whether the player is the winner of a prize. State v. Ferris, 284 A.2d 288 (Me. 1971); Petition of District Attorney, 644 A.2d 240 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994); Commonwealth v. Mihalow, 16 A.2d 656, 659 (Pa.Sup. 1940) ("A `device or apparatus for gambling' is a device or apparatus designed for carrying on the actual gambling — for determining whether the player is to win or lose, like the wheel of fortune . . . and contrivances of that sort.") (citation omitted). These cases have concluded that a horse race is not a gaming device.

  3. State v. Fitzpatrick

    407 P.2d 309 (Idaho 1965)   Cited 4 times

    Machines of this type, upon which games are played for amusement, although involving an element of chance, are not ipso facto gambling devices or gambling machines. Prendergast v. Dwyer, supra; Commonwealth v. Mihalow, 142 Pa. Super. 433, 16 A.2d 656 (Pa.Super. 1940). (c) Cases like Thamart v. Moline, which hold that devices which merely award free games are gambling devices, do not control, but if considered they should be overruled. Thamart v. Moline, 66 Idaho 110, 156 P.2d 187 (1945); Prendergast v. Dwyer, supra; Washington Coin Machine Ass'n v. Callahan, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 142 F.2d 97; State v. Waite, 156 Kan. 143, 131 P.2d 708, 148 A.L.R. 874; Gayer v. Whelan, 59 Cal.App.2d 255, 138 P.2d 763; State of Iowa ex rel. Harman v. Doe, 255 Iowa 814, 123 N.W.2d 400 (1963).

  4. Commonwealth v. Rivers

    323 Mass. 379 (Mass. 1948)   Cited 9 times
    In Commonwealth v. Rivers, 323 Mass. 379, 383 (1948), we held the operation of coin-activated amusement devices delivering "free plays" to be gambling within the meaning of G.L. (Ter.

    And as pointed out before, it is the free play itself that is the "property of value" however evidenced. See Mills Novelty Co. v. Farrell, 64 F.2d 476, 478 (C.C.A. 2); Davies v. Mills Novelty Co. 70 F.2d 424, 426, (C.C.A. 8); Commonwealth v. Mihalow, 142 Pa. Sup. Ct. 433, 439; and the dissenting opinion in State v. Wiley, 232 Iowa, 443, 453-456. In the instant case there are present in the operation of the machine "three elements of gambling, namely, chance, price and a prize," Kraus v. Cleveland, 135 Ohio St. 43, 47; Hunter v. Mayor Council of Teaneck, 128 N.J.L. 164, 169, the price being the five cent piece deposited in the machine, the prize a possibility by chance or hazard to obtain further amusement free.

  5. Commonwealth v. One Electro-Sport Draw Poker Machine, Serial No. 258

    297 Pa. Super. 54 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)   Cited 6 times

    A device or game does not involve gambling per se merely because an element of chance is involved in its play or because it may be the subject of a bet. Football, baseball and golf, as well as bridge, ping pong, billards or, for that matter, tiddledywinks, all involve an element of chance, yet the mere playing thereof is not gambling; betting on them is. SeeCommonwealth v. Mihalow, 142 Pa. Super. 433, 16 A.2d 656 (1940). Admittedly, someone might attempt to bet on the outcome of games played with the Electro-Sport Draw Poker Machine.

  6. Commonwealth v. Stark

    64 A.2d 853 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1949)   Cited 1 times

    Penal laws must be strictly construed. And the propriety of the holding of the court in this instance is ruled by principles to which we referred in Wigton's Return, 151 Pa. Super. 337, 30 A.2d 352 and Commonwealth v. Mihalow, 142 Pa. Super. 433, 16 A.2d 656. There should however be no doubt as to the scope of our decision in this case.

  7. Lehigh Valley Brewery Workers Case

    35 A.2d 561 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1944)   Cited 5 times

    See, also, Ajax Club Liquor License, 153 Pa. Super. 473, 34 A.2d 326. The learned court below places stress on what we said in Commonwealth v. Mihalow, 142 Pa. Super. 433, 16 A.2d 656, where defendant was charged with maintaining a gambling device. There the pinball machine involved was not necessarily a gambling device.

  8. Wigton's Return

    151 Pa. Super. 337 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943)   Cited 26 times

    Thus a chess board and men set up for play with a `house player' and played for stakes would be subject to seizure and destruction (see State ex rel. Dussault v. Kilburn, 111 Mont. 400, 109 P.2d 1113, 1116); whereas, the mere fact a game involves a substantial element of chance would not be enough to condemn it. Com. v. Mihalow, 142 Pa. Super. 433, 16 A.2d 656. This is not to say that proof that a device or machine operates entirely by chance is without significance.

  9. Urban's Appeal

    148 Pa. Super. 101 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1942)   Cited 21 times

    In our opinion, it follows, when the principles of law set forth in the case just cited are applied to the evidence appearing upon this record, that the order now appealed from should be affirmed. The case of Com. v. Mihalow, 142 Pa. Super. 433, 16 A.2d 656, cited and relied upon by counsel for appellant, is readily distinguishable. The machine involved in that case, while commonly known as a pinball machine, was, in fact, a miniature bowling alley.

  10. State v. Paul

    43 N.J. Super. 396 (Law Div. 1957)   Cited 2 times

    Decisions outside of the State in favor of the defendants' contention are: State v. Waite, 156 Kan. 143, 131 P.2d 708, 148 A.L.R. 874 ( Sup. Ct. 1942), held, free games was not "property" under the Kansas statute; Town of Centerville v. Burns, 174 Tenn. 435, 126 S.W.2d 322 ( Sup. Ct. 1939); Gayer v. Whelan, 59 Cal.App.2d 255, 138 P.2d 763 ( App. Ct. 1943), free game not an article of value and is not an inanimate object to be called a thing; Stoutamire v. Pratt, 148 Fla. 690, 5 So.2d 248 ( Sup. Ct. 1941), thing of value or valuable thing does not include playing for amusement; Times Amusement Corp. v. Moss, 160 Misc. 930, 290 N.Y.S. 794 ( Sup. Ct. 1936), affirmed 247 App. Div. 771, 287 N.Y.S. 327 ( App. Div. 1936). In re Mapakarakes, 169 Misc. 766, 8 N.Y.S.2d 826 ( Sup. Ct. 1938); Commonwealth v. Mihalow, 142 Pa. Super. 433, 16 A.2d 656 ( Super. Ct. 1940), no violation because no prize or money paid; Urban's Appeal, 148 Pa. Super. 101, 24 A.2d 756 ( Super. Ct. 1942), held unlawful because money paid out, but court stated if only free game and no money, it would reach an opposite conclusion.