Akron (City) v. Stojanovic

Akron Municipal Court

Akron (City) v. Stojanovic

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 804, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1597

DecidedAugust 9, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 804 (Akron (City) v. Stojanovic) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Akron Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Akron (City) v. Stojanovic, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 804, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1597 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

ZESIGER, J,

Epitomized Opinion

Defendant was tried under a city ordinance prohibiting the keeping or exhibiting of a gambling levice and was found guilty. He had kept for use i slot machine which was operated by the insertion jf nickels by the player who would receive at times a package of confection or mints and a cer-;ain number of chips as the dial indicated. Defendant made a motion for a new trial. Held:

The rule is that whgre one who’ plays a slot machine stands to win or lose money, trade or checks sy chance, the machine is a gambling device. The .impression that so long as the player receives some-:hing of value in return for the money played the machine is within the law, is erroneous. Whenever ;he element of chance enters into the play and the flayer has the opportunity to receive something :or nothing, it comes within the provisions of the irdinance. Motion overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ZESIGER, J,

Epitomized Opinion

Defendant was tried under a city ordinance prohibiting the keeping or exhibiting of a gambling levice and was found guilty. He had kept for use i slot machine which was operated by the insertion jf nickels by the player who would receive at times a package of confection or mints and a cer-;ain number of chips as the dial indicated. Defendant made a motion for a new trial. Held:

The rule is that whgre one who’ plays a slot machine stands to win or lose money, trade or checks sy chance, the machine is a gambling device. The .impression that so long as the player receives some-:hing of value in return for the money played the machine is within the law, is erroneous. Whenever ;he element of chance enters into the play and the flayer has the opportunity to receive something :or nothing, it comes within the provisions of the irdinance. Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 804, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akron-city-v-stojanovic-ohmunictakron-1923.