Case ID: mass_22/html/0041-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth versus William W. Clapp.
    In an indictment upon St. 1825, c. 184, for advertising or causing to be advertised fo< sale, lottery tickets in any lottery not authorized by the laws of this commonwealth, it is not necessary to allege that the tickets were advertised as being for sale within this commonwealth, or that the lottery was within this commonwealth and not authorized by our laws, or to specify the lottery, the tickets in which were advertised.
    The printer of a newspaper in which such an advertisement is inserted, is liable to indictment under that statute, although he may have no concern in the sale of the tickets.
    This was an indictment alleging that W. W. Clapp, ol &c., printer, on &c., did advertise and cause to be advertised in a certain newspaper by him published, and called the Evening Gazette, lottery tickets and parts of lottery tickets for sale in lotteries not authorized by the laws of said com monwealth, against the peace, &c.
    The St. 1825, c. 184, upon which the indictment was founded, provides, that if any person shall sell, or offer for sale, or shall advertise, or cause to be advertised for sale, any lottery ticket or tickets, or part or parts of any lottery ticket or tickets, or shall draw any lottery not authorized by the laws of this commonwealth, or aid or assist in drawing any such lottery, or shall be concerned in the management or conducting of any such lottery, within this commonwealth, he shall forfeit and pay a sum not more than 100 dollars for either of the offences aforesaid.
    
    The defendant was convicted, and upon a motion in arrest of judgment, Rand contended that the indictment was defective, — because it did not allege that the tickets were advertised as being for sale within the commonwealth, and so no offence was set forth, and it was not a sufficient answer to say that the indictment followed the words of the statute ; — because it did not allege that the lottery was in this State and was unauthorized by our laws, and that the defendant advertised tickets in such a. lottery as being for sale here; — because it did not set forth with reasonable certainty the lottery, the tickets in which were advertised ; — and because the penalty was intended to be imposed only on the person who was concerned in selling the tickets, and not on the mere printer of an advertisement.
    These several objections were overruled.
    
      Morton (Att. Gen.) and Davis (Sol. Gen.) for the commonwealth.
    
      
       See Revised Stat c. 132, § 4.