Powell v. Red Carpet Lounge, 22025

• Decision Date: 10 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. 22025,22025
• Citation: 280 S.C. 142,311 S.E.2d 719
• Parties: Frank POWELL, Sheriff of Richland County, Appellant, v. RED CARPET LOUNGE, Respondent. and Frank POWELL, Sheriff of Richland County, Appellant, v. DARRELLS CLUB, Respondent. and The STATE, Appellant, v. ELLENBURG AMUSEMENT COMPANY, Respondent.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 719

311 S.E.2d 719

280 S.C. 142

Frank POWELL, Sheriff of Richland County, Appellant, v. RED CARPET LOUNGE, Respondent. and Frank POWELL, Sheriff of Richland County, Appellant, v. DARRELLS CLUB, Respondent. and The STATE, Appellant, v. ELLENBURG AMUSEMENT COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 22025.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 10, 1984.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Scott Elliott and Charles H. Richardson and Sol. James C. Anders, for appellants-respondents and appellant.

John T. Gentry, Pickens, Clinch Heyward Belser, Robert E. Kneece and H. Dewain Herring, Jr., Columbia, and John A. Martin, Winnsboro, for respondents-appellants.

Matthew R. Hawley, Jr., of Gentry & Hawley, Greenville, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

These cases on appeal from the circuit court were commenced by the Sheriff of Richland County (Appellant) against Red Carpet Lounge and Darrells Club (Respondents) to test the legality of coin-operated machines seized by the Appellant and alleged by him to constitute per se violations of § 52-15-10, South Carolina Code of Laws (1976), making them subject to confiscation and destruction under § 52-15-20. ¹

Section 52-15-10 was amended in 1982. We first consider the facts and law prior to amendment.

In contest is the legality of machines referred to as "Cute Girl", "Carolina Cup", "Draw Poker", "Black Jack", and "Bally Double Up". "Cute Girl" and "Carolina Cup" have been declared illegal and the ruling on these two machines by the circuit judge is not on appeal. "Draw Poker", "Black Jack" and "Bally Double Up" have been declared legal, inspiring this appeal on the part of the Sheriff. It has been stipulated that the claim of illegality is based solely on the existence and possession of the machines, and there is no contention of illegal use. Accordingly, the sole issue for determination is the legality or the illegality of the three types of machines referred to above without regard to their use.

Section 52-15-10 (1976), entitled "Types of Machines and Devices Prohibited by Law", declares certain coin-operated machines illegal. It exempts, however, certain machines as follows:

But the provisions of this section shall not extend to coin-operated nonpayout pin tables with free play feature....

Section 16-19-60, enacted in 1975, reads as follows:

§ 16-19-60. COIN OPERATED NONPAYOUT MACHINES WITH FREE PLAY FEATURE ARE NOT ILLEGAL.

Nothing in §§ 16-19-40 or 16-19-50 shall extend to coin operated nonpayout machines with a free play feature; provided, that nothing herein shall authorize the licensing, possession or operation of any machine which disburses money or property to the player.

The exemption in § 52-15-10 specifically refers to "pin tables", whereas § 16-19-60 only refers to "coin operated nonpayout machines with a free play feature".

We agree with the Respondent that these two sections are in pari materia and must be construed together so as to give proper meaning and effect to each. Statutes in apparent conflict which address similar subject matter must be read together and reconciled if possible so as to give meaning to each and to avoid an absurd result. State ex rel. McLeod v. Montgomery, 244 S.C. 308, 136 S.E.2d 778 (1964); Stone & Clamp, General Contractors v. Holmes, 217 S.C. 203, 60 S.E.2d 231 (1950).

The code sections referred to above were the controlling law as of the time these actions were commenced in 1981. While the order of the lower court declaring the coin-operated machines legal was on appeal to this court, the General Assembly, in 1982, in the General Appropriations Act, amended § 52-15-10, as quoted herein above to read as follows:

[B]ut the provisions of this section shall not extend to coin operated nonpayout pin tables, in-line pin games and video games with free play feature.... (Emphasis added.)

In light of the statutory amendment, the cases were remanded to the circuit court for the purpose of having that court indicate what effect, if any, the amendment had on disposition of the issues involved. The circuit judge ruled, first, that the amendment did not violate Article III, Section 17 of the Constitution of South Carolina, which requires that subject matter of the proposed law be set out in the title of the act and that an act relate to but one subject; and, second, that...