Sharpe v. Johnson

California Court of Appeal Oct 17, 1947 No. Civ. 3468Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a municipal ordinance prohibiting the maintenance of coin-operated amusement devices in places of business or public resort is a valid exercise of the police power rather than an absolute prohibition of a lawful business. The reasonableness of such regulatory ordinances is primarily a matter for the legislative body, and courts will not interfere if the discretion has been reasonably exercised.

Issues

Whether a municipal ordinance prohibiting coin-operated amusement devices in places of business or public resort constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of police power.
Whether the ordinance is an invalid absolute prohibition of a lawful business or a permissible regulatory measure.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the ordinance is not necessarily prohibitory but may be considered regulatory only, and, accordingly, comes within the scope and purview of the police power of said city.”

“the question of its reasonableness is largely one resting in the discretion of the legislative body and not one within the province of the courts to interfere if such discretion has been reasonably exercised.”

GRIFFIN, J.

Plaintiff and appellant seeks an injunction against defendant and respondent, as Chief of Police of the city of Laguna Beach, prohibiting him from enforcing a city ordinance in respect to possession of certain “Goalee” machines or devices in places of business or other places of public resort, which ordinance declares such devices and equipment to be a nuisance, provides for the abatement thereof, and for penalties for its violation. Section 2 of the ordinance provides:

“It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to keep, maintain, possess or have under control in any place of business or in any other place of public resort . . . any ‘table game,’ or . . . ‘marble game’ ... or any device similar thereto, the operation, use or play of which is set into operation or controlled by placing therein any coin ... or by the payment of any fee.”

It is admitted that the “Goalee Machines,” as alleged in the complaint, come within the provisions of section 2.

[940]

Plaintiff alleges generally that he is the owner of certain coin-operated amusement machines called the “Goalee Machines”; that there are no prizes offered for scoring in said games; that there are no free games allowed for scoring any score; that said games are merely for the purpose of amusement; that plaintiff is engaged in the business of placing these machines in various places of business; that he receives a percentage of the proceeds; that he has entered into agreements with several business places in said city to place and operate said machines; that the city has no ordinance requiring that a license be obtained for the operation of this type of machine; that he has made oral application to the defendant for permission to operate the machines in said places of business in said city and that defendant refused him permission so to do; that if plaintiff installs said machines therein, as aforesaid, defendant will have plaintiff arrested under said ordinance and that plaintiff will be deprived of his right to engage in a lawful and legal business ; that the ordinance in question is an arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of the police power and amounts to the taking of property of plaintiff without due process of law, and the impairment of his property rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ; and that unless defendant is restrained by the judgment of the court he will carry out his threats and plaintiff will be subjected to a multiplicity of suits. He prays that the ordinance be declared null and void and asks that defendant be enjoined from enforcing the ordinance

Sharpe v. Johnson

AI Brief

GRIFFIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief