State v. Langley, No. 17679

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTAYLOR; STUKES
Citation115 S.E.2d 308,236 S.C. 583
Docket NumberNo. 17679
Decision Date08 July 1960
PartiesSTATE, Respondent, v. James LANGLEY, Appellant.

Page 308

115 S.E.2d 308
236 S.C. 583
STATE, Respondent,
v.
James LANGLEY, Appellant.
No. 17679.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
July 8, 1960.

Page 309

[236 S.C. 584] Charles W. McTeer, Chester, for appellant.

Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Julian L. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

[236 S.C. 585] TAYLOR, Justice.

Defendant, convicted before a Magisstrate for violation of the provisions of Act No. 181 of the General Assembly for 1959, now appearing as Sec. 5-624.2 of the Supplement to the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1952, appeals contending that such Act is violative of Art. I, Sec. 5, of the Constitution of South Carolina, and of the XIV Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The Act under consideration provides:

'It shall be unlawful for the operator of any pinball machine to permit any minor under the age of eighteen to play or operate such machine. The operator of any pinball machine shall be responsible that every person who plays or operates his machine is in fact legally authorized to do so.'

It is admitted that defendant is an operator of such machine as is referred to in the Act and that at the time of his arrest, a minor of the age of 17 years was playing such machine in his place of business. Defendant elected not to testify but as a defense attacked the constitutionality of the Act by moving that the charges be dismissed upon the ground that the Act was in violation of Art. I, Sec. 5, of the Constitution of South Carolina, and of the XIV Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The motion to dismiss was overruled, and defendant sentenced to pay a fine or serve thirty days in jail. From this sentence defendant appealed to the Court of General Sessions, which affirmed the sentence of the Magistrate and defendant now appeals to this Court.

At the outset we might state that we are concerned here only with the effect of the provisions of the foregoing section[236 S.C. 586] of the Code upon an operator who permits a minor under the age of eighteen years to play a pinball machine in his place of business.

It is apparent that the purpose of the Legislature in the enactment of the Statute in question was to regulate the operation of pinball machines and not to prohibit their operation.

A pinball machine has been described as one in use of which the player, after depositing a coin in the slot, puts balls in play by pulling a spring actuated

Page 310

plunger on a tilted table upon which there are bumpers...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Main v. Thomason, No. 25182.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 14 August 2000
    ...and federal constitutions with the authority to legislate for the protection of the public health, welfare, and morals. State v. Langley, 236 S.C. 583, 115 S.E.2d 308 (1960). Courts will not interfere with the enforcement of regulations designed for the 342 S.C. 87 protection of health, wel......
  • SC DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION v. Rosemary Coin Machines, …, No. 2840.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 4 May 1998
    ...Power The government is imbued with the power to legislate for the protection of the public health, welfare and morals. State v. Langley, 236 S.C. 583, 115 S.E.2d 308 (1960); Midwest Beverage Co. v. Gates, 61 F.Supp. 688 (N.D.Ind.1945) (citing Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31......
2 cases
  • Main v. Thomason, No. 25182.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 14 August 2000
    ...and federal constitutions with the authority to legislate for the protection of the public health, welfare, and morals. State v. Langley, 236 S.C. 583, 115 S.E.2d 308 (1960). Courts will not interfere with the enforcement of regulations designed for the 342 S.C. 87 protection of health, wel......
  • SC DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION v. Rosemary Coin Machines, …, No. 2840.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 4 May 1998
    ...Power The government is imbued with the power to legislate for the protection of the public health, welfare and morals. State v. Langley, 236 S.C. 583, 115 S.E.2d 308 (1960); Midwest Beverage Co. v. Gates, 61 F.Supp. 688 (N.D.Ind.1945) (citing Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31......

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