The law, company history and fiddles

[13rebel]

I have recieved the article. Published here with the permission of the author, Emeritus Professor David Miers, and not for republication without his consent. I have found it an interesting and informative read,
Thank you sir.

Gaming Machines in Great Britain: A Century of Change
Moved to Resources - site admin.

[badpenny]

What a result well done 13rebel and JTP for suggesting it.

Just goes to show, if you don't ask ........

Bit of bedside reading there.

[pennymachines]

Well done 13rebel and to OB for the suggestion. That's fantastic, I look forward to studying it and am sure many of us here will find it very informative. Most courteous of Prof Miers.

Ah, the academic and legal publishing scam - sounds like another case to argue before Justice Scrutton.

Agreed. It's particularly galling when largely publicly-funded academic research is hidden behind precipitous paywalls that the public can't breach without paying a second time. And when a university stumps up $51 for 24 hours access to 17 pages, the public foots the bill again. Roll on the Open Access revolution!

Academic spring: how an angry maths blog sparked a scientific revolution Guardian, 9 April 2012.

[badpenny]

Apologies Op Bell I was crediting the other great American with the idea.

I forget at times that Americaland is more than a one street place and there are more than one of you.

Sorry

[operator bell]

Apologies Op Bell I was crediting the other great American with the idea.

Oh, please. It doesn't matter - what matters is we got to see the article. Credit belongs to 13rebel for following up.

I quit my job in the gambling industry a year ago and got a real job, working for a science company where my boss is a University professor. We make scientific instruments for a living, but we also do our own research and publish the results. I've seen academic publishing from the other side now, and I was pretty confident Dr Miers would respond if anyone took the trouble to ask him.

[john t peterson]

Excellent suggestion, Operator Bell. It's amazing what some will do for you if you just ask politely. Good work to all!

J Peterson
The other American

[badpenny]

Could you two please not write quite so closely together thank you.
It's confusing enough as it is.

[13rebel]

My thanks as well to OB for providing the lead

[pennymachines]

One of Professor Miers sources is Automatic Machines And The Law (1937), G. Cohen & I. Maltz.
While searching for that book, I found this early test case of an automatic machine v. Sunday trading restrictions, in the Sydney Morning Herald, Nov 25, 1913:

AUTOMATIC MACHINES AND THE LAW.

Last week the Supreme Court was called upon to decide rather a novel point in connection with automatic machines and their relation to the general law of trading. The result shows that an inanimate contrivance can stand firm where mere mortals fear to tread. The question arose over certain machines which supply cigarettes when the necessary coin is inserted. Being machines, they are hardly alive to the necessities of Sunday observance, and if tempted with an adequate bait they continue to sell cigarettes without regard either to time or place. The Crown prosecuted their owner for a breach of the Sunday trading laws. The magistrate held that the charge should be dismissed, practically on the ground that there was no personal agency. The Crown appealed, and his Honor Mr. Justice Ferguson dismissed the appeal. He had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that a contractual relation existed between the proprietor of the machine and the individual who put the coin in the slot. It is a principle of law that he who acts by means of another acts himself, and legally it makes no difference whether the other is a human being or not. The doctrine of responsibility applies equally to animate and inanimate objects, and, to put it in its crudest form, it makes no difference to my guilt whether I murder you with my own right hand, or through a hired bravo, or (like Conan Doyle's villain) by making a snake bite you, or by an inanimate contrivance like a pistol. Mr. Justice Ferguson held that from a merely contractual aspect the owner of the slot machine had traded on Sunday. But that by no means meant that technically he was guilty of a breach of the Sunday Observance Acts. His Honor adduced a number of analogies in support of his view. Because a trader offers goods for sale, is he to to be penalised because a purchaser chooses to accept them during prohibited hours? Again, putting it baldly, because a wine and spirit merchant circularises possible customers, is he to be blamed because one of them sends off an order for something on a Sunday. On the strength of these arguments the Court held that as long as no human labour or attention is involved in such circumstances there is no offence.

We do not for one moment question this interpretation of the statute; indeed, the Court seems to have come to the only logical conclusion. But that the state of the law should be what it is is surely rather unsatisfactory. It enables a man to do by means of a machine what he would not be able to do himself or by his employees. This involves two consequences. It penalises the ordinary shop-keeper who can only sell certain goods subject to restrictions of time and place. The automatic machine, on the other hand, can reap a plentiful harvest where the individual is debarred from exercising his calling. It also means that the machine is probably in a more favourable position with regard to those to whom it sells its wares. The shop-keeper must not sell cigarettes to anyone under a certain age; the machine is under no such restriction. This may seem to be a small matter, but the principle is capable of indefinite extension. On the Continent of Europe the "Restaurants Automats" are a universal institution.. In these one is faced by a serried phalanx of slot machines from which, on the insertion of the requisite coin, one can get anything from brandy to buns, and from sherry to sausages. If the owner of such contrivances is to be allowed to trade with all sorts of customers and at all sorts of hours, we shall soon have the community driving coaches and fours through our Liquor Acts. Surely this is a matter where the Legislature should step in to protect both the ordinary trader from unfair competition and the community from evils which the law in its present state is unable to prevent. It should not be difficult. These machines might easily be locked up during prohibited hours. In any case they have to be restocked, and their takings have to be collected. The same operation might be used to put them out of commission, say, from the Saturday night till the Monday morning. This might involve some inconvenience, but better this than the flagrant anomaly which the law in its present state permits.

[operator bell]

One of Professor Miers sources is Automatic Machines And The Law (1937), G. Cohen & I. Maltz.
While searching for that book, I found this early test case of an automatic machine v. Sunday trading restrictions, in the Sydney Morning Herald, Nov 25, 1913:

Oh, the Sunday Trading laws! I remember those. My late father was a clergyman, and I remember discussions at home about this very point, whether it was sinful to buy a chocolate bar from a machine on Sunday in violation of the 4th Commandment. If I recall correctly the conclusion was that it was ok because we hadn't caused another person to "work". In retrospect that seems like sophistry, because the religious injunction was on the believer, not the unbeliever, so it was hardly reasonable to blame the seller because a believer wanted to violate a principle of his own faith.

I also recall discussions about why gambling was wrong, I in my childish innocence expecting there would be an actual, y'know, reason, like a Bible passage or similar. I knew enough to know that gambling was mentioned frequently in the Bible, both halves. I just assumed I'd missed the bits that said it was a sin. It turned out the best my dad could do was make a strained and improbable argument that it violated the 10th commandment against covetousness. His own opinion of this legalism became fairly clear after he retired and no longer felt he had to set an example. Whenever he visited me, he played my machines for hours at a time, barely stopping to eat and sleep.

[chris rideout]

Bandit reels with more symbols than stops. Manufacturer.
Bugs on star wheels. Both

Old Mills machines had 20 symbols on each reel but only a 10 stop mechanism. That meant that half the winning combinations were not "winnable" so to speak. As for bugs on the star wheels, a friend of mine bought an old machine from the fairground many years ago and wondered why one of the cherries on the first reel would miss and land on the next symbol. Yes, a nut and bolt and a bit of glue was discovered on the cog. In those days, a fairground worker (known as a "flattie") was paid about £60 a week and had a free caravan to live in. The operators seemed to have much more and had good accountants to look after their tax affairs. Roll up, roll up!