HonorableLeo Presnell opinionNO. o-2032
CountyAttorney Re: (1) Could the operatorof B
Upshur County penny marblemachine,there
Gil.mer,Texas being no pay off on said
machine,it being apparently
operatedfor amusementonly,
be in any way chargedwith a
violationof the Fend Code
of the State of Texae?
(2) Is there any way whereby
the operationof tbia type
De&z’%Lr! of r~achkremay be rnjokred?
Thir will robnowlrdp racaipt of your rrqwrt for our opinion
ln an1w.r to the ~ollowiag qu01tion1
“Could thr operator of a pomy Prrblr ancbiae, vhore 'the m
of chancr 11 l limimtod, thara bring no myoff on rrld nuchiao,
and prawnably muchnmchinabeia# oprrrtrd for uuuwmnt purporrr
only, be fa any way charged with a violation of the Penal Code
of the state of Texa14”
Your lettercontaineno furtherdelrcription of the “marble
machine”than 18 dirclomed in the above quotationfrom your letter.
ye note a rtatementin the final paragraphof your letterwhereinyou
write:
"I am aleo doubtfulan to the operationof such machinebeing
in violationof the law, other than euch machinemight be used for
the placingof bete on the aide. Should there be any way whereby
the operationof this machinemay be enjoined,I would appreciate
euch informationand the means of procedure.” (Emphaelsours)
The statutorypenal provieionerelatingto gaming.erefound
in chapter6 of Title 11 of the Penal Code. We direct your especial
attentionto Article619, which read6 ae follows:
“If any pereon shall directly,or ae agent or employeefor
another,or throughany agent or agents,keep or exhibitfor the
purposeof gaming,any policy game, any gaming table,bank, wheel
or deviceof any name or descriptionwhatever,or any table,bank,
wheel or devicefor the purposeof gamingwhich has no name, or
any slot machine,any pigeon hole table, any jenny-lindtable,
HonorableLeo Presnell,page 2 (o-2032)
or table of any kind whatsoever,regardlessof the name or whether
named or not, he shallbe confinedin the penitentiarynot less
than two nor more than four years regardlessof whetherany of
the above mentionedgames,tables,banks,wheels, devicesor slot
machinesare licensedby law or not. Any such table,bank, wheel,
machineor device shallbe consideredas used for gaming,if money
or anythingof value is bet thereon."
Article 620 of the Penal Code reeds as follows:
"It being intendedby the foregoingarticlesto includeevery
speciesof gaming deviceknown by the name of table or bank, of
every kind,whatever, this provisionshallbe construedto include
any end all games which in common languageare said to be played,
dealt,kept or exhibited."
In the notes to Article 619, Vernon'sAnnotatedPenal Code,
it is said that the essentialelementsof 8 gamingtable or bank are
as follows: It is a game, it has a keeper,dealer or exhibitor;it
is based on the principleof the one againstthe many, the keeper,dealer
or exhibitoragainstthe bettors,directlyor indirectly;end must be
exhibited,that is, displayedfor the purposeof obtainingbettors.
Steernesv. State, 21Tex. 692; Lyle v. State,30 Tex. Cr. R. 118, 16
S. W. 765; Averheartv. State, 30 Tex. Cr. Pi.651, 18 S. W. 416;,Bell
v. State,32 Tex. Cr. R. 187, 22 S. W. 687; Shaw v. State, 35 Tex. Cr.
R. 394, 33 S. W. 1078.
We quote from the cese of Steernesv. State, supre,es fol-
lows:
"Any change,cover, disguise,or subterfugein any such in-
gredients,or in relationto the structureupon which the game
is exhibited,or the instrumentsby which the result is developed,
for the purposeof evasion,will not changethe characterof the
game. It is difficultto imagineany speciesof table or bank,
or gamingdevice resemblingeither,that is kept for gaming,that
would not be includedin the clausesof the Code."
It mattersnot how the table or bank is constructedor operated
if it is kept or exhibitedfor gamingpurposes. Doyle v. State, 19 Tex.
Cr. R. 410. Whether or not the table was designedfor gamingpurposes
is immaterial--it is the game or characterof play on it that determines
its status. Estes v. State, 10 T. 300; Chappellv. State, 27 Tex. Cr. R.
310, 11 s. w. 411.
From your letter,we conceivethe marble machinementioned
by you to be similerto the ones condemnedby the relativelyrecent
cases of Adams v. Antonio, (Civ.App.) 88 S. W. (2d) 503, Robertsv.
Gossett,(Civ.App.) 88 S. W. (2d) 507, and Houstonv. Fox, (Civ.App.)
93 S. W. (2d) 781. However,in each of the three cases mentioned,it
HonorableLeo Presnell,page 3 (C-2032)
appearsthe machineswere of the "pay off" variety. Such a machine
has been held to be no less a gamblingdevice if the operatorpays the
winner ratherthen the machine itself.
The Courtshave recognizedtwo kinds of gaming devices,as
shownby the followingquotationfrom the case of Mills v. Browning,
(Civ.App.) 59 S. W. (2d) 219:
"A gaming devicemay be (a) one which is made primarilyend
principallyfor &ambling,e. g.,.e roulettewheel, and, this
primaryand principalpurposebeing established,no furtherproof
of its actual use la required;or (b) it may be 8 devicewhich
is useful for serviceto law-abidingsociety,in which event the
article itselfmuet be shown to be actuallyused in gamblingto
constituteIt condemnable.* * * These definition6are of long
standing,end sincetheir announcement,the ingenuityof some
types of our cltieenshas devoteditselfto an effortto make the
formerwhich would to a judge or jury appear to be the latter,
and the law reportsaboundwith the descriptionsof them."
If 8 machineis 8 gamblingdevice per se, it is not essential
that the state prove that money or anythingof value wa8 bet upon the
Houghtonv. Fox, supra;Carrollv. State,81 9. W. 294; Brogden
v?iate, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 121, 80 S.,W. 378. If not such a deviceper
se, its use for gamblingmuet be proven. Mills v. Browning,eupra.
It appearsfrom your letterthat the machinecomes within
the letter classification, and proof of the machinebeing used for
gamblingwill be essentialto render it subjectto seizureby the of-
ficersand condemnationin accordancewith the provisionsof Articles
636 to 638, Penal Code, inclusive.
It would also naturallyfollowthat upon such proof 8 prose-
cutionwould lie under the provisionsof Article 619, Penal Code, supra;
but we also directyour attentionto Articles624, 625, 627, 628 end
630 of the Penal Code. Without copyingthe articleshere, we submit
any one of them might be the basis of 8 successfulprosecutionif the
facts should disclosegamblingon the marble machine in question. In
our opinionsuch procedurewould be preferebleto Art. 654, Penal Code,
set out by you, which condemns8 lottery.
If such machine shouldbe determinedto be either8 gaming
device per se, or so used as to make it one, under 8 sufficientshowing
of facts,en injunctionwould lie to abate the nuisance. The law ep-
plicebleto such e situationis fully discussedend the procedureout-
lined in 20 Tex.Jur.675, Sections56 to 58, inclusive,and Art. 4667,
Vernon'sAnnotatedCivil Statutes,end ceses there cited.
HonorableLeo Presnell,page 4 (O-2032)
Trustingthe above answersyour inquiry,we are
Yours very truly
ATTORNEYGENEMLOFTEXAS
By /a/ BenjaminWoodell
BenjaminWoodall
Assistant
BW:jm:lm
APPROVEDMAR 15, 1940
/*I Gerald C. Mann
ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS
APPROVED
OPINION
COMMITTEE
BY /s/ BWB
CHAIRMAN