Case ID: va_26/html/0534-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*The Commonwealth v. William H. Garland and Others.
    November, 1826.
    ■Gaming — What Constitutes — Case at Bar. — Taking- a chance in a raffle, at twenty dollars, or any less sum, although the property raffled for exceeds that sum, (the raffling being at a private house) does not bring the person within the operation of the gaming act.
    Same — Same—Same.—The winner of the thing raffled for (it exceeding $20.) does come within the operation of the law, although neither of the losers (the loss of each being less than $20.) comes within it.
    Same — Same—Same.—If the prize is won by two or more individuals in partnership, but the share of the gain of each is less than $20, neither of them is embraced by the law.
    Same — Statute—Construction,—The taking a chance in a raffle is not the same offence as the purchase of a foreign lottery ticket, and is, therefore, not liable to the penalty prescribed for the latter offence, by the latter part of the 27th section of the gaming act.
    Note by Beockekbboügh. J. The reasons for the above opinion, were not assigned by any member of tbe Court, but they are believed to be as follows.
    The 27th section of the act prohibits raffling as an unlawful game. The .sixth section declares, that if any person, by playing- or betting- at any game, or wager whatsoever, at any time within the space of twenty-four hours, shall lose, or win to, or from another, a greater sum, or any thing of greater value than $20, the loser and winner shall be liable to pay one-half of the entire sum above the said sum of twenty dollars, which he shall so win, or lose, upon intormatiou, &c„ to the use of the Commonwealth, &c. The lirst class of cases, mentioned by the Court, supposes that the individual stakes twenty dollars only, or less, upon the .game: he cannot lose more than twenty dollars, and the case does inn suppose that he wins the thing raftied ior, but is unsuccessful. Me does not, therefore, come within the law. ño, as to the third class of cases; neither individual wins as much as twenty dollars, and therefore, does not come within the act.
    
      
       See monographic note on “Gaming” appended to Neal v. Com., 22 Gratt. 917.
    
   The Grand Jury for the Superior Court of Albemarle, made sundry presentments against individuals under the gaming act. The first was against William H. Garland, “for putting up a watch to be unlawfully raffled for, to raise for himself the sum of twenty-five dollars.” The second against Charles E. Harrison, “for unlawful gaming, by taking a chance at two dollars in a raffle, and raffling for a watch put up by William H. Garland, to raise for himself the sum of twenty-five dollars, the value of the watch so put up to be raffled for.” The third against Charles Downing, “for unlawful gaming, by putting up two horses to be raffled for, to raise for himself the sum of two hundred dollars, at his own house, &c.” The fourth against Eyman Peck, “for unlawful gaming, by taking a chance at twenty dollars, in a raffle, and raffling for two horses, put up by Charles Downing, at the price of two hundred dollars, at the house of Charles Downing, &c.” The fifth against Charles Downing, “for unlawfully putting up a raffle, to be played for at cards, a parcel of books, of the amount of eighty dollars, and having the same played for at cards, to raise for himself the sum of eighty dollars, at his own house, &c.” The sixth against William E. Gordon, “for unlawful gaming with cards, and winning *a parcel of books, of the value of eighty dollars, within twenty four hours, at the house of Charles Downing, &c. said books having been unlawfully put up in a raffle by said Downing, to . be played for with cards, to raise for him the sum of eighty dollars, &c. ” The seventh was against William H. Jones, for putting up a raffle of pictures of the value of eighty dollars, and was of the same description as the fifth. The eighth was against Ebenezer Zane, for taking a chance at three dollars, in the last raffle, and is like the second.

The Superior Court being doubtful whether a portion of the cases thus presented, if established by proof, be punishable by the laws made for the prohibition of unlawful gaming, adjourned the following points to this Court for its decision.

“1. Does the individual who takes a chance in a raffle, at twenty dollars a chance, or any smaller sum, where the property raffled for, exceeds twenty dollars in value, and the raffling takes place in a private house, come within the “act, to reduce into one the several acts, or parts of acts, to prevent unlawful gaming?”

“2. Does the individual who takes a chance as aforesaid, and who raffles as aforesaid, and wins the thing raffled for, come within the meaning of the said law?

“3. Where the whole value of the thing raffled for exceeds $20, but the prize is won by two individuals in the raffle in partnership, and the value to each when divided does not amount to twenty dollars, do both come within the operation of the said law, or without? ”

“4. As lotteries and raffles, are both games of chance, and of similar character, prohibited by the Legislature in the same clause of the gaming law, and as by an amendment to that clause, the vendor, or purchaser of a lottery ticket, is subjected to a penalty (viz: $100,) and as by the 29th section of the same law, the Courts are directed to construe the several laws made for the prevention of unlawful gaming, as remedial statutes, and as the purchase of *a chance in a raffle comes within the evil intended to be remedied by the said amendment, can the individual who takes a chance in a raffle, be considered as embraced by the said amendment?”

The General Court, after conferring on the subject, entered the following judgment.

The Court is of opinion, and doth decide:

1. That the class of cases embraced by the first question adjourned to ttiis Court, does not come within the “act to reduce into one the several acts, or parts of acts, made to prevent unlawful gaming. ”

2. That the class of cases mentioned in the second question, does come within the meaning of the law.

3. That the third class of cases does not come within the operation of the law.

4. That an individual who takes a chance in a raffle, cannot be considered as embraced in the amendment referred to in the fourth question.

Which is ordered to be certified, &c.

As to the second class of cases, it is different. The prme is of greater value than twenty dollars, and is won by the defendant, But.it Is objected, that he does not win from another, but from sundry persons the thing raided for. and as they do not lose more than $20 each, and therefore, do not come within the law', so neither does the winner. To this it was answered, that although such might be the grammatical, and literal meaning of the clause, it was not the proper construction. This law is to be construed, according to its own provisions, as a remedial law; in other words, so as to advance the remedy, and suppress the mischief. The object of the law is to prevent high gaming-, and if an indi vidual wins more than the prescribed sum, his offence is the same, whether he wins it from one, or from several.

As to the fourth class of case.s, it does not come within the law’, because although rallies and lotteries are similar, yet they are not the same.