Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0835-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MATTHEWS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BADER v. CINCINNATI (City)
    Hamilton County Common Pleas
    No. 181915.
    Oct. 29, 1923
    241. LOTTERIES.
    Consideration in a strict contractural sense not (required.
    Appearances — Joseph W. Heintzman, for plaintiffs :'n error; Saul Zielonka, Chauncey Pichel, for City.
   MATTHEWS, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Plaintiffs in error who were engaged in the restaurant business distributed tickets bearing certain numbers corresponding to duplicate tickets retained by them from which they determined by chance a certain number the possessor of which received an automobile. A ticket was given with each sale to patrons of the restaurant without extra charge. Plaintiffs in error were convicted of violating 130G3 GC. and an ordinance of the city forbidding the carrying on or promoting of a lottery or scheme of chance. They prosecuted error to this court, contending no lottery because of a lack of consideration for the tickets. Held.

Under the Ohio statute consideration in the strict contractual sense is not an element of offense. Judgment affirmed.