Commonwealth v. Tri-County Amusement Co.

McGLYNN, J.,

The claimants raise two basic objections to the forfeiture as follows: (1) there was no evidence that the devices in question were, in fact, used for gambling purposes, and (2) the Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 382, sec. 60, 18 PS §1445, as amended December 6, 1972, P. L. 1068, 18 Pa.C.S. §5513, is unconstitutional in that it deprives a person of his property without due process of law.

The Act of 1860 established as a category of outlaw property — the mere possession of which would constitute a crime — “any device or machine . . . used and employed for the purpose of unlawful…