OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

QRILO c. UAWN 

ATramluv .‘“anLL 

Eon. Jack Borden, County Attorney 

parker County 

Ueatherford, Texas 

Dear Sir:. 

Pour. request 

tlon has been received 

Opinion Ro. QRe: Does a pl eby a theatre 

of a cItLzen 

of the Constltu 

The plan vhere 

citizen of the co 

stantially as fol 

uys the fingerprint of a 

d of operatlon Is subIn' the front lobby 

graph cards are kept 

ngerprlnt Ink vhere 

rd, with their address, and 

the place provided for it. 

le with other cards already 

The people signing these 

to buy an admlsslon ticket nor 

order to sign and fingerprint.. 

gnated night set aside each veek by the 

GERPRINT NIGRT, the Pile with all: the 

erprinted cards are taken to the stage 

re vhere someone Is selected from the 

In case of some one being famlllar with flnelng appointed to make a selection of one 

fingerprint he thinks is the best or has some particular 

characteristic he favors. The flngerprInt;being on the 

back side of the card and the name on the front side 

shows that.thIs selection Is made from the fingerprint 

only and not the individual name. This card Is then 

handed to a second person on the sta$e vho turns the 

card over and calls the name of the autograph appearing 

thereon. If this person whose name Is called comes for- 
5.54 

Bon. Jack Borden, Page 2 

ward to the stage within three minutes from the time 

the name 18 called and Identifies his autograph and 

f'lngerprint, they are then paid the weekly amount 

posted by the theatre for the purchase of th&,fingerprint snd.they are requested to sign a card giving the 

theatre the right to purchase this fingerprint and use 

It for their files only except In the case where it may 

be necessary to use for IdentlfIcatIon caused by some 

accident or otherwise. If'thls person vhose‘n'+e vas 

called Is not there, within the designated time, to 

identify his autograph, fingerprint and sign the card 

to permit the theatre to make the purchase as stated, 

this veekly amount set aside by the theatre to purchase 

the fIngerprInt Is carried forward to the next week and 

then at that time It 1s added to the regular weekly 

amount set aside for each week and so on until a purchase 

Is actually made of a fingerprint. 

"The theatre has the right to hold all fingerprints 

given In their files at the theatre except as stated above 

In case of accidents, and the right to use those purchased 

for educational purposes only. 

"Uhll&en under 14 years of age do not participate. 

"Each person who sells the right to use their flngerprint under this method shall sign the card giving the 

theatre the right to purchase same and place It In the 

files vlth the others purchased and a purchase cennot be 

msde If this card Is not signed at the proper time." 

Article 654 of the Penal Code reads as follows: 

*If any person shall establish a lottery or dispose 

of aw estate, real or personal, by lottery, he shall be 

fined not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand 

dollars; or if any person shall sell, offer for sale or 

keep for sale any ticket or,part ticket In any lottery, 

hel;z;;lmbe fined not less than ten nor more than fifty 

. 

We quote from Tex. Jur., Vol. 28, p. 409, as follows; 

"The term lottery has no technical sIgnlfIcatIon In 

the law, and since our statute does not provide a definltlon, Its meaning must be determined from popular usage. 

According to that test a lottery 1s a scheme for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance among those who have 

paid or agreed to pay a consideration for the right to 

participate therein, or the distribution Itself. . . ." 
555 

Eon. Jack Borden, Page 3 

See the oases of -- 

State vs. Randle, 41 Texas 292; 

Featherstone vs. Independent Service Station 

Association of Texas, 10 S.W. (26) 124; 

pulbrlght vs. State, 38 S.W. (2d) 87. 

fin the case of Featherstone vs. Independent Service 

Station Association, supra, the court defined a lottery as 

follovsr 

"A lottery for all practical purposes may be defined as any scheme for the distribution of prizes, by 

lot or chance, where one on pagig money or giving other 

thing of value to another obtains a token which entitled 

him to receive a larger or smaller value or nothIng, as 

some formula or chance may determIne." 

The Federal Circuit Coti of Appeals In the case of Peek 

v. United States, 61 F. (26) 973, has given the following deflnltlon of a lottery: 

"Acheme for the dIstrlbutIon of prizes or things 

of value by lot or chance among persons who have paid 

or agreed to pay a valuable consideration for the 

chsncekto obtain a prize. And again, a soheme by which 

a result is reached by some action or means taken, in 

which result man's chdoe or design enable him to knov or 

determine . . . until the same has been accomplished." 

The case Boatwright vs. State, 38 S.W. (26) 87, defines 

a lottery ast 

"Any scheme for distribution of prizes by &an&." 

The case of Griffith Amusement Co. vs. Morgan, 98 S.W. 

(26) 844, holds the elements essential to consltute a lottery are 

us prize In money or other thing of value, its distribution by 

chance in payment, either directly or indirectly, of a valuable 

consideration for the chance to win the prlse. 

The case of State vs. Randle, supra, holds that any 

scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance Is lottery and 

It matters not by what name such a scheme may be knovn. It 

comes within the prohibition of Article 654 of the Penal Code. 
Eon. Jack Borden, Page 4 

J!n the case of City of Wink vs. Griffith Amusement do,,. 

100 SW (L'd) 695, the court saXd that the necessary elements of 

mea 

"Offering of a prize, award or prize by chanae, 

and giving of consideration for opportunities to win 

prize:" 

The above mentioned requirement that the winner appear 

uu~cIaIm tha prize vlthln th rec. (3), minutes from the time hl6 

name la announced at the theatre, undoubtedly operat\es as a trea 

mondous pressure on any one desiring to paxticIpate,to pay the 

prlc 

f 

of admission. That Is undoubtedly the purpose, and It Is 

aqua Iy obvious that the award is made out of funds accumulated. 

from-paid admissions.. In short,? the plan Is a violation of Art.14 

ale 654 of the Penal Code. 

In view of the foregoing authorities you are respectfully 

adifsed that it Is the opinion of this department that the above 

nentloned scheme or plan whereby a sheatre buys the fingerprints 

of a.cItleen of the community as above outlined is a violation of 

Article, 654 of the Penal Code. 

Trusting that we have satisfactorily answered your 

inquiry, ve remain 

Yours very tNly 

ATTORNRYGRNEiRAL OFmS 

BY /i/ A~rdell WIllIams 

Approved: Opinion CommIttee 

by BWB, Chairman