Com. v. Prince

Decision Date31 May 1951
Citation99 N.E.2d 286,327 Mass. 443
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. PRINCE (and five other cases).

G. Miraldi, Asst. Dist. Atty., Boston, for the Commonwealth.

A. Margolis, Boston, for defendant.

Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, WILKINS, SPALDING and WILLIAMS, JJ. SPALDING, Justice.

The defendant was found guilty in the Superior Court by a judge sitting without a jury on six complaints which charged him with operating a public amusement without a license in violation of G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 140, § 181. Fines totaling $975 were imposed. The cases come here on a report, G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 278, § 30, in which it is stated that 'If, as a matter of law, the court should have found the defendant not guilty, then such finding[s] of guilty * * * [are] to be set aside and * * * finding[s] of not guilty ordered; otherwise, the finding[s] of guilty * * * [are] to stand.'

The cases were submitted upon a statement of agreed facts, substantially as follows: At his premises, which are located in the amusement area of Revere Beach, the defendant operates a game known as Lite-A-Line. In the premises there are two rows of 'tables or machines,' each of which is approximately twenty-three inches by twenty-eight and one half inches. There is a seat in front of each table. The table has a flat top and at the end away from the player are twenty-five holes arranged in five rows of five each. The game is conducted and supervised by an announcer. Upon the announcement that the game has begun each player seated at a table projects a ball along the table top surface toward the area of the twenty-five holes. The ball enters one of the holes and a light corresponding to that particular hole appears on a blackboard on the player's table. The ball then returns to the player, who repeats this process. 'The object of the game is to get five in any straight line before any other player does so. The first person who succeeds in doing this is declared the winner and obtains a prize. While the game is in operation a counterman walks beside the rows of tables, and each person sitting at a table and playing hands him ten cents for participation in the game.' The tables have no coin slots and no money is deposited in any coin controlled apparatus. Persons seated at the tables are not obliged to play. One is not required to pay a fee on entering the premises. The defendant was conducting the game described above on the dates mentioned in the complaints and was not licensed under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 140, § 181, to operate a public amusement.

It is provided by G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 140, § 181, that 'The mayor or selectmen may * * * grant, upon such terms and conditions as they deem reasonable, a license for theatrical exhibitions, public shows, public amusements and exhibitions of every description * * * to which admission is obtained upon payment of money or upon the delivery of any valuable thing, or by a ticket or voucher obtained for money or any valuable thing, or in which, after free admission, amusement is furnished upon a deposit of money in a coin controlled apparatus * * *.' Under section 182 ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Com. v. Mahoney
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1954
    ...v. Cronin, 257 Mass. 535, 154 N.E. 176; Commonwealth v. Surridge, 265 Mass. 425, 164 N.E. 480, 62 A.L.R. 402; Commonwealth v. Prince, 327 Mass. 443, 99 N.E.2d 286. The Municipal Court of the City of Boston had jurisdiction to hear the complaints for assault and battery and for larceny and t......
  • Anagnos v. Raptis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1951
  • Prince v. State Tax Commission
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1974
    ...terms of G.L. c. 140, § 181. See Jaffarian v. Building Commr. of Somerville, 275 Mass. 267, 175 N.E. 641 (1931); Commonwealth v. Prince, 327 Mass. 443, 99 N.E.2d 286 (1951). The Commission then argues that the fee paid by a contestant in order to play one of these games is not a 'sale at re......

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