The opinion
■Holmes, Jc,
dissenting. This case presents a close question which has previously been .addressed by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in the case of American Meeting Halls, Inc., v. City of Whitehall (No. 76AP-942, March 22, 1977), unfeported. In that case involving an ordinance of the city of'Whitehall controlling the rental of premises for the conduct of bingo games, the court, upon which I served as a member, held that 'there was no “conflict” between the ordinance and the general laws.
In Whitehall, supra, thé court stated:
“R. C. 2915.09 does not affirmatively grant powers to charitable organizations to engage in bingo. Instead it provides a penalty if a charitable organization goes beyond any specifically enumerated limitations placed upon Its conduct of bingo games. It does not grant a power to non-charitable organizations such as appellant to lease- premises for bingo games or protect them in respect to the lease of premises for such purposes. The Whitehall .c-.ity ordinance in question simply prohibits more than is' prohibited by state statute.”
I respectfully shall maintain my position as expressed in Whitehall. Here, the city of Lorain has enacted a law pursuant to its constitutional home rule powers to prohibit the pay out of more than a certain amount by operators of bingo games. Neither the state law nor the Lorain ordinance affirmatively grants or licenses a bingo operator to pay out any money during a bingo session. Rather, each law forbids the pay out of an amount greater than expressed in those sections. I- believe that applying the test of conflict as set forth in Struthers v. Sokol (1923), 108 Ohio St. 263 , one must conclude that there is no conflict. In that no conflict exists, I would have to hold that Lorain Ordinance 719.03 (a) is constitutional.