Were penny-in-the-slot machines in pubs there as a healthy form of amusement or as an illegal type of gambling on licensed premises?

Annie Darton, licensee of The Goat pub, 182 Park Street; William G. Cooper, of The Chequers, 112 Park Street; and William Edward Foxley, of The Panama, 34 Waller Street, were summoned at Luton Borough Sessions for allowing gaming to be carried on in their respective licensed premises.

Town Clerk William Smith said the prosecutions were taken under Section 79 of the Licensing Consolidation Act 1910. The charge was not so much with reference to unlawful gaming as allowing gaming to be carried on on the premises.

Mrs Darton, who succeeded her husband as licensee of The Goat in December 1902, had an "electric amuser" machine installed. A label on it indicated that, being a patent, it had passed the scrutiny of Crown officials, and was in conformity with the law. The label also said there was no danger attached to its use but it provided "a great tonic, cured headache, rheumatism, neuralgia and nervousness" using electric treatment.

The modus operandi, said the Town Clerk, was to place a penny in the aperture at the top. Immediately there commenced a buzzing noise and when the right-hand handle was turned a needle swung round on an indicator. When it reached a certain point the buzzing ceased and a ball fell into position and, if used correctly, the player received an electric shock. Then if the ball ran down certain holes it produced checks in the value from 2d to a shilling - or nothing. There was no guarantee what the winner was going to receive.

Mr H. W. Lathom, defending, said the penny in the slot was merely to pay for the electricity, the ball was a secondary consideration, given free, for amusement only. He objected to the word "lost" if no check emerged, the user had merely received nothing for his penny. The machines, he pointed out, would be perfectly legal in a confectioner's shop or at a church bazaar.

The Town Clerk described the cases as a most feeble and transparent device to legalise a machine which in a public house was contrary to law.

Mr Lathom pointed out that a Judge of Appeal, sitting as the Chairman of a Divisional Court, had contended that having paid for the electricity, it was not gaming to use the machine.

Each licensee was fined 30 shillings, with costs of 7 shillings in two cases and £1 8s in the case of The Goat. Mr Lathom said there would be an appeal by The Goat.

It seems that magistrates were keen to convict on any hint of gambling. In another case, Harry Rogers, a youth, was charged with having games with cards in Barber's Lane on September 29th. He pleaded guilty and was fined 7s, including costs. He was allowed 14 days in which to pay.

[The Luton News, October 1st, 1914]