Coin Slot Magazine - #071 - 1981 - January [International Arcade Museum]
Continued from page 11
acknowledges the aesthetic interest
of the confiscated machines on the
basis of the prices they are selling for.
The Legislative intent in mentioning
the importance of slot machines in
California history cannot be explain
ed on the basis of any evidence before
the court. There is no evidence that
any of these machines were manufac
tured in California, and there is no
evidence
that
any
particular
manufacturer of slot machines has
ever done business in California.
(Author's comment: Attorneys handl
ing such cases in the future are
advised that evidence of such matters
exists; for example, Mills Novelty
Company did business in Oakland for
many years. There is plenty of
evidence that manufacturers did
business in California as late as the
1940's. Slots were also manufactured
in California. The first one-armed
bandit was invented in San Francisco
by Charles Fey. Apart from this, it is
this writer's view that the real impor
tance of slots in the history of Califor
nia was their widespread use and
appeal. There is plenty of evidence of
that, too. Quaere, whether a research
of
legislative
committee
reports
would be helpful in this regard.)
Since no evidence of the impor
tance of slot machines in California
history was presented to the court,
the mere legislative reference to that
importance does not provide any
guideline as to what constitutes an
"antique" slot machine.
The Court then reviews briefly the
various laws in California applicable
to the use of slot machines for gambl
ing and the mere possession of slot
machines; a review of such laws, the
court concludes, does not shed any
light on what the Legislature meant
by the reference to the "importance of
slot machines in California history."
By way of dictum, the court
suggests that TOTAL REPRODUC
TIONS
OR
COPIES
(emphasis
added) of antique slot machines
wouid not qualify for the protection
afforded antique slot machines. In
this case, however, the machines in
question are not total reproductions.
The following statements of the court
are the cornerstones of a judicially
structured definition of an antique
slot machine:
"What we have in evidence here are
machines
that
were
originally
mechanical slot machines of the type
now made obsolete for casino use by
virtue of the advent of electronic slot
machines over a quarter of a century
ago. Even though all of them were not
necessarily manufactured before that
time (sic). These machines are in
various stages of restoration, con
taining varying percentages of new
and original replacement parts. But
there is no reason to believe that any
of them were originally manufactured
for the purpose of being sold as
antiques."
The wording of the statute makes it
clear that the restoration, as well as
the
collection,
of
antique
slot
machines is protected. Since the
legislature did not define "restora
tion," the Court relies on the dic
tionary definition: "To bring back to a
former or normal condition as by
repairing, rebuilding, altering, and so
forth." The court concludes that the
machines in question are antique slot
machines which have been "restored"
(as provided by the statute) in varying
degrees. The court adds the following
important statement: "The conclusive
presumption of the statute itself im
plies that machines manufactured
SINCE 1941 (emphasis added) may
be antiques.
Despite the fact that the court has
already concluded, for the reasons
mentioned above, that the machines
in question are "antiques" for the
purposes of the applicable Penal
Code section, the court provides ad
ditional reasons for its decision by
referring to universally accepted prin
ciples of interpretation of criminal
law. Since the statute in question is
vague and is subject to more than one
reasonable interpretation, it must be
interpretations is used in a penal law,
ordinarily the construction that is
more favorable to the (alleged)
offender (e.g., collector or dealer) will
be adopted by the court.
The court stresses the fact that the
Legislature could have defined "an
tique" slot machine if it had chosen to
do so. In particular, the court stresses
that the Legislature chose NOT to
limit the meaning of "antique" slot
machine to one with original parts or
one shown to have been manufac
tured in California. It follows, the
Court concludes, that it is NOT up to
the police or the Courts to decide, in
any
particular
case,
what
the
Legislature was specifically talking
about. (In other words, the Courts
should
refuse to place specific
limitations on the kinds of machines
protected other than those clearly
specified by the statute.)
The Court provides still another
reason for its decision: There is no
evidence, as provided by the litigants
in this case, that the business of
obtaining slot machines and restor
interpreted
in
a
manner
most
favorable to the person charged with
ing them with new parts as needed so
as to make them fully operable and
salable at a profit constitutes a threat
a crime or wrongdoing. While Mr.
Collins was not (apparently) so
charged, the confiscation of his
machines took on a penal nature, and
to the anti-gambling statutes of
California. If such a threat exists, it is
up to the Legislature to deal with it,
not the police or the Courts.
he is entitled to the benefit of the
principle just stated. The practical
In its closing remarks, the Court
makes the following significant state
significance of this principle here is
stated in the following remarks of the
court, "In other words, criminal
statutes will not be built up by judicial
grafting
upon
legislation."
As
applicable to the issues in this case,
this means (1) that the court will not
limit the protection of the statute to
machines
manufactured prior to
1941, (2) that the court will not limit
the protection of this statute to
restorations using only original and
Americamade parts, and (3) that
the court will not limit the protection
m to restorations in
of this o
.c a statute
m
volving
specified limited percentage
:
u
of new and/or foreign parts. The true
from -muse
d
e
e
d
basis for this liberal approach to the
d
a
nlo w.arca
matter is stated in Section 4 of the
w
o
D
w
Penal Code: All provisions in the
w
://
penal statutes are to be construed
http
© 12
The
Arcade
Museum
— International
THE COIN
SLOT
whether a particular machine is an
"antique," the owner is entitled to the
benefit of every reasonable doubt,
whether such doubt arises out of a
question of fact or out of a question as
to the true interpretation of language
used in a penal statute. It follows, as
the court points out, when language
that is reasonably susceptible of two
according to the fair import of their
terms, with a view to effect its objects
and to promote justice. If it is not clear
ment:
"So in essence, I think, gentlemen,
what the Court is saying, that among
the various definitions of 'antique'
which are available and which are
possible meanings of the legislature
in the use of the word, that certainly
these are in the style of the machines
which are now obsolete by virtue of
the electronic machines coming on to
the scene. And even though they may
not all be ancient in the sense that
many laymen might use the term
'antique,' they are in the style of a
machine from a bygone day which is
not any longer used for organized
commercial gambling purposes."
In summary, the following obser
vations, based upon the rulings and
the reasoning of the Court with
respect
to
California
law,
may
be
helpful to litigants in the future, not
Continued on page 29
http://www.arcade-museum.com/
JANUARY, 1981