Scranton City v. Tatarunas

Citations

• 36 Pa. Super. 205
• 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 136

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Gambling house — Summary conviction — Municipal ordinance — Constitutional law.</p> <p>A city ordinance declared it unlawful “for any person either as proprietor, lessee, agent or employee to conduct games played for money or other things of value,” and provided a penalty of fine or imprisonment for a violation of the ordinance. Under this ordinance a summary conviction was sustained by the court below against a licensed saloon-keeper who permitted men to play cards for drinks in his barroom, and personally served the drinks. It was claimed that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The case was heard on -appeal by six judges who upon the general question whether the judgment should be affirmed or reversed were equally divided in opinion. The judgment of conviction was, therefore, affirmed.</p>