Weis v. Allman

Decision Date02 April 1945
Docket NumberGen. No. 43213.
PartiesWEIS et al. v. ALLMAN, Superintendent of Police, et al.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Municipal Court of Chicago; Francis Borrelli, Judge.

Action in detinue by Robert Weis and another against James P. Allman, Superintendent of Police, City of Chicago, and others for the return of ‘receptacles' and currency contained therein taken by the police from plaintiffs' premises. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Reversed.Barnet Hodes, Corp. Counsel, of Chicago (J. Herzl Segal and Sydney R. Drebin, Asst. Corp. Counsel, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Alschuler, Putnam, Johnson & Ruddy, of Aurora, and Leonard J. Grossman and Lawrence E. Dowd, both of Chicago (Clarence J. Ruddy, of Aurora, and Leonard J. Grossman, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

SCANLAN, Justice.

An action in detinue brought by Robert Weis and Greater Chicago Lodge No. 3, Loyal Order of Moose, incorporated not for profit, for the return of nine ‘receptacles' and $500 in currency contained in the ‘receptacles,’ taken by the police of the City of Chicago from the premises of the corporation, hereinafter referred to as Chicago Lodge. The case was tried by the court without a jury and a judgment order was entered finding that Chicago Lodge was the owner of the nine receptacles and currency contained therein and ordering the City of Chicago, James P. Allman, Superintendent of Police of the City, and William Doubek, Custodian of the City, to return at once to Chicago Lodge and Robert Weis, its agent, the said chattels and the $500 in currency, and judgment for $2,500 was entered against the three defendants, to be discharged upon the immediate delivery by defendants to plaintiffs, at the premises of Chicago Lodge, of the nine receptacles and the $500. Defendants appeal.

The material facts are practically undisputed. On March 4, 1944, two police officers of the City of Chicago entered the premises of Chicago Lodge, located in the building at 130 North Wells street, Chicago, to investigate a complaint that there were slot machines in operation in the premises. A girl asked them for their membership cards. They told her that they were police officers, making an investigation, and they walked through a door marked, ‘Dining Room.’ James Traut, one of the police officers, testified: ‘There was a bar at one end of this room, and at the other end of the room there were several offices. In the middle of the room were several large posts. There were chairs around the bar, and around one of these posts, alongside one of these posts, there was numerous slot machines, and against the wall there was nickel slot machines. * * * Mr. Pantelis [Assistant Corporation Counsel]: Describe the slot machine that required a nickel to be inserted. A. It is a metal receptacle, and it has a metal base. On the right hand side of the receptacle, there is a lever, coming out, and there is a small opening in which you insert a five cent piece, and you then pull the lever and as you pull the lever, there is five or six nickels showing in an open-- * * *

‘Q. Did you play this machine? A. I did.

‘Q. All right, how did you play it? Describe the method you followed. A. I put a nickel in the slot. I then pulled the lever. As you put the nickel in the slot and pull the lever, there is five or six nickels showing in the glass, and these nickels move over, and the coin which you inserted is shown. There are three wheels which turn in one way, and as these wheels turn, they come to a sudden stop, and there is a-cherries, lemons and oranges and bars and what not, on the first wheel, and there is the same on the second wheel, and the same on the third wheel.

‘Q. Were there any coins returned, or any merchandise returned after you played one of these slot machines? A. No, there wasn't.

‘Q. How many machines did you play? A. I played three machines.

‘Q. And were they all nickel machines, or did you play and other kind of machines? A. Five cents and ten cents and twenty-five cent machines.

‘Q. And you inserted the coin in each one the same way, through a hole in the metal container? A. That's right.

‘Q. On your-pulled a lever, and the wheels spin around on each one of them? A. Yes. * * *

‘Q. State what they were? A. Slot machines.

‘Q. And where are they-how are they played? For what purpose, if you know?

‘Mr. Grossman [counsel for plaintiffs]: I object, if the Court please.

‘The Court: Overruled, if he played it.

A. You put in a coin, and if your certain numbers come up, more coins return than what you put in.

‘Mr. Pantelis: More than you put in? A. That's right.

‘Q. And did you get any coins out of playing any of the three machines?

‘Mr. Grossman: He has already answered that, Your Honor.

‘Mr. Pantelis: I don't know whether he siad anything about the three or not.

‘The Court: I don't know whether he was lucky or not. A. No, I was not lucky.

‘Mr. Pantelis: You weren't lucky. All right. Did you see any other persons playing the machines at that time? A. There was one person playing the machines.

‘Q. Was he a police officer, or someone on the premises? A. I don't know who he was.

‘Q. Was he a police officer? A. I don't know.

‘Q. He wasn't with you? A. He wasn't with me.

‘Mr. Pantelis: That's all.’

Upon cross-examination the witness stated that after playing the machines he noticed that there were several cards on the wall above the machines; that he had no search warrant and was not asked by anybody if he had, until after he arrested Weis, when he was asked if he had a warrant and he stated that he had not. The officer further testified that he had the machines taken from the premises and delivered to the custodian of the department of police; that the machines had money in them; that he put coins in the machines, and found out that they were in operation; that he saw a sign on one of the doors that said, ‘for members only.’ William J. Sullivan testified that he was a police officer of the City of Chicago and that he visited the premises with Officer Traut; that when he entered the place where the slot machines were ‘there was one man playing the slot machines;’ that he, the witness, played one machine; that there were eight slot machines in all, and another machine that is known as ‘Jumbo Parade;’ that he played a five cent slot machine; that it was ‘just a regular slot machine, you drop the coin, five cents or ten cents, or whatever it is, you drop the coin, and you pull the lever * * * and if you are lucky, you get a few nickels;’ that he saw Officer Traut playing the machines; that he took possession of the machines, called the wagon and took them down to the police station; that all of the machines ‘were slot machines.’ Upon cross-examination he stated that his testimony would be practically the same as Officer Traut's about the cards and about the sign ‘for members only;’ that there was no sign upon the door through which they entered the place where the machines were; that they went to the premises ‘to investigate a complaint that there was slot machines in operation.’ Counsel for the City stated that if there was any doubt in the court's mind as to whether the nine machines taken were slot machines the City would bring them in. In response to this offer counsel for plaintiffs stated that the question before the trial court was not whether the machines were in form slot machines, but the use to which they were put, and counsel argued that the card above each machine determined the question. Plaintiffs then offered in evidence one of the cards, which reads as follows:

‘-Notice!--

‘This Receptacle Is the Property of the Greater Chicago Lodge No. 3, Inc. Loyal Order of Moose.

‘This receptacle is placed here for one purpose only, to receive donations from the members of Greater Chicago Lodge No. 3, Inc., Loyal Order of Moose for the general and entertainment fund.

‘Please Do Not Donate Under Any Other Conception.

‘If you are a visitor please refrain from donating or using this receptacle. Donations are received from members of this organization only-and only for the purpose specified.

‘For Members Only Who Wish To Donate To The General and Entertainment Fund

‘By Direction: --

‘The Board of Officers'

This card was the only evidence introduced by plaintiffs in rebuttal of the testimony of the two police officers. Counsel for plaintiffs made statements to the court as to the nature of Chicago Lodge, its splendid membership, its charitable works, and that the machines were merely ‘receptacles' ‘used by us as donation boxes for members only, and not for gambling.’ The trial court made inquirires of the counsel as to where the money went that was put into the machines, and the counsel stated that it went to the general charity fund of Chicago Lodge. Counsel for the City called the trial court's attention to the fact that the statements of counsel did not amount to evidence, but the trial court stated that the intent and purpose for which Chicago Lodge used the machines was ‘a governing circumstance;’ that the organization was a great one, devoted to charity, and that the money that came from the machines was used for that purpose. Plaintiffs also introduced in evidence a certified copy of a draft order filed March 6, 1944, in the case of People v. Robert Weis, which recites that a motion to suppress evidence and for the return of all property unlawfully taken from defendant's custody, at 130 North Wells street, was made in that case, upon teh ground that the search of the premises by police officers was without a search warrant and the seizure of the receptacles described by the police officers as slot machines and the $500 was an unlawful seizure. The certificate also recites that the motion to suppress came on to be heard before Judge Gibson E. Gorman, and that he entered an order that the property seized by the police officers and the arrest of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People ex rel. O'Malley v. 6323 North LaCrosse Ave.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1994
    ...Machine (1942), 316 Ill.App. 161, 44 N.E.2d 950; City of Chicago v. Thomson (1946), 393 Ill. 568, 66 N.E.2d 436; Weis v. Allman (1945), 325 Ill.App. 554, 60 N.E.2d 436; People v. Cattaneo (1955), 6 Ill.2d 122, 126 N.E.2d The State also points to other jurisdictions wherein courts have found......
  • People v. Two Roulette Wheels & Tables
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 8, 1945
    ...have considered, among others, the recent cases of People v. Three Roulette Wheels, 325 Ill.App. 502, 60 N.E.2d 248 and Weis v. Allman, 325 Ill.App. 554, 60 N.E.2d 436. For the reasons stated, the order of the Criminal Court of Cook County is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions......
  • City of Chicago v. Sayer
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 14, 1947
    ... ... 161, 44 N.E.2d 950, a slot machine was seized without a warrant, and the court refused to order its return. In [70 N.E.2d 874]Weis v. Allman, 325 Ill.App. 554, 60 N.E.2d 436, recently decided by this division of the court, plaintiff brought an action in detinue for the return of ... ...
  • Joyce v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 2, 1945
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT