99 S.E. 703 | S.C. | 1919
Lead Opinion
June 23, 1919. The opinion of the Court was delivered by 1. For the reasons stated by his Honor, the Circuit Judge, this Court is satisfied with his conclusions that the machine is not so constructed as to give a certain and uniform return in value for each coin deposited therein. His Honor, the Circuit Judge, also ruled that there was no element or chance connected with the operation of the machine. There was no appeal from his ruling in this respect, and such question is not before the Court for adjudication.
2. The next question is whether there was error in the ruling that the plaintiff had the right to recover the possession of the machine. Both the possession and the use of the machine are made unlawful; and any person violating the provisions of the said section shall be subject to the fine therein mentioned. If the Court should allow the plaintiff to recover possession of the machine, the restored possession *374
would still be unlawful, and its possession would subject the plaintiff to a fine. Under such circumstances, the Court will not permit the use of its process. Lanahan v. Bailey,
In the first mentioned case, this Court quotes with approval the following language from Bank v. Owens, Pet. 539,
"No Court of justice can, in its nature, be made the handmaid of iniquity. Courts are instituted to carry into effect the laws of a country. How can they, then, become auxiliary to the consummation of violations of the law? * * * There can be no civil right when there is no legal remedy, and there can be no legal remedy for that which is itself illegal."
Judgment modified.
Concurrence Opinion
The statute says, "keep on his premises, or operate or permit to be kept on his premises or operated." I see nothing in the statute to indicate that "or" means "and." To so hold is to repeal the statute as to the purchaser, and not the owner operating the machine.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur with the CHIEF JUSTICE.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent. The statute does not provide for a confiscation of the plaintiff's property, and, therefore, the sheriff had no right to seize and keep it or to destroy it. The statute does not make it a crime for the plaintiff to have the machine in his possession, except for the purpose of operating it contrary to law. I think the judgment of the Circuit Court should be affirmed.
*375MR. JUSTICE WATTS concurs with Mr. JUSTICE HYDRICK.
