Upon information filed in the Fort Smith municipal court a slot machine, known as a “Mills Mint Vending Machine,” was seized аs a gambling device, and upon a hearing H. C. Howell, one of the proprietors of the Hattaway Drug Company’s stores where the machine was being operated, filed an intervention claiming that he was the owner of the machine and prayed that it be returned to him.
The intervention was denied, and an appeal was taken to the circuit court, where, upon trial, the mint vending machine was held to he' a gambling dеvice and subject to seizure as such, and the intervention of appellant was denied accordingly, from which .judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The undisputed testimony shows the machine was operаted as a mint vending machine, and upon the deposit of a nickel in the slot and the pulling of the opеrating lever it uniformly released one package of mints of the usual value of 5c, never more or less, and when the container was empty, the machine automatically returned the nickel to the player.
Upon depositing a nickel in the slot and a lever being pulled, reels are caused to rеvolve displaying pictures of fruit and bells; and at irregular intervals, in addition to the mints delivered, brass tokens or slugs, whiсh can be played back into the machine, are delivered in number from 2 to 20, the machine not relеasing a package of mints when a token is put into the slot, but the reels do spin showing the pictures of thе fruits, etc.
The contract between the owner of the machine and the operator recitеs that the tokens would not be used as trade checks for any purpose other than the playing of thе machine when delivered. The machine upon being operated by a nickel put into the slot, not only delivered a 5c package of mints upon the lever being pulled, but also displayed on the reеls the “fortune” of the player or wise sayings or maxims. The fortune telling feature was removed from the maсhine by the owner or operator upon advice of counsel that it would not be considered а gambling device after this was done before it was set up and operated. The machine as operated only delivered a nickel package of mints and the tokens on uncertain and irregular оccasions, and although the tokens upon being-put back into the machine operated it, nothing rеsulted from such operation except the spinning of the reels with the pictures of the advertisemеnts thereon. No mints could be delivered except by playing the machine with a nickel deposited in the slot.
In Rankin Mills Novelty Co.,
In 27 C. J. 989, in describing rules formulated by courts for determining when a slot machine is a gambling device, it is said: “But оne which seems to have been accepted very generally is that, where one who plays а slot machine stands to win or lose money, trade, or checks, by hazard of chance, the machine is a gambling device. The machine is a gambling device where its operation is such that, although the player in any event will receive something, he stands a chance to win something in addition.” See also State v. Marvin, 233 N. W. (Iowa) 486; Harvie v. Heise, 150 S. C. 277,
The machine is usually held to be a gambling device where its operation is such that; although the player in any event will receive something, “he stands a chance to win something in addition.”
The majority is of opinion that since, by the operation of the machine, the player stands a сhance to win something in addition to the package of mints sold and delivered him at the regular price by the delivery at irregular intervals of the tokens, which may be played back into the machine, causing the machine to operate and the pictures to be exhibited thereon, that they are included in the expression in the statute “any representative of anything that is esteemed of value, ’ ’ and that the machine as operated is a gambling device within the meaning of the statute, as construed in Rankin v. Mills Novelty Co., supra.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed.