T.HEA~ORNEY GENERAL 

### OF TEXAS 

## CaRAm c.wan ie P”“““” GIPIN=-=

Honorable Holvey Villlemn Criminal District Attorney Waco, Taxes
Deer Slrr Opinion Bo. O-2309 Re: Whether or not prise scheme of theetre constitutes a lottery.

Thin will eckooa&dge receipt of$hnr letter of April 30, 1940, requ&ting an opinion of-thir department ee to whether or not a prize a&em ,of e loeal~heatre, siriler to the,"Pot of Guld" radio program, !. conatltutar e lottery mch,se ia mede un%wfulby Article 

### 654 of the penal CodB. The p~ia~dercr1bed~l.u your letter.,86 eolJ.owe~



### ‘~ ‘Thelocalshowo'propoee to have a wheelahich they rpln and it will etop -'a certain numberwhich all1 Indicate a certain page In our local 

### citydirectorJI, and they will again spin the wheel aad it wtll stop et a certain lw on said page, and the naae ep+earing on that line will receive e ,ceeh prim. The theeter~aill attempt to call the number and eleo will announce the namefrom a loud apeeker et their theater here In Yaco, eeid annouqcement to be heard on the downtown city streets, end If the party receZving the phone cell ie~at homeor hear6 the announcement over the loud speaker, he Is entitled to receive the prize. It la not neceeeery for thcrecelver of the prize to have purchaned a ticket at any of the theetere."



### ~Sectiox~47ef-Article III of the Conetitutlon of Texan ,madsa 'Tha~Iag1nlatum~shal.l paea Lava prohibiting the eetebliahment of lotterle#'and gift entsrprlres in thlo State, as well ea the rale of tickets In lotterier,~gift enterprinee or other evaalone Involving the lottery principle, clltabliahed or existing, in other atetes.'

Purnuent to muchcommand,the Leglalsture peeeed 

### ATticle654 of the~Pena1 Code,~whlch reada ae followaI ;,:g ~:*If q-perron~ehall eetablleh:a~ lotteryo~~dlspime of any eetete;'real M pcr¨, **bf** lottery, he,rhs&l be finad aot.lelle than One

### Hnndrad($lOO)~Dollarm'no~nore than OneThoumnd 

### ($1,000) Dollare~ 

### or ifinypereon#hellBell,offer 

### foreale**or;keep** 

### forsaleanyticket8 or pert tickets in any lottery, he shall be fined not lean thau Ten ($10) Dollere nor more then Fifty ($50) Dollars."

In Cole vs. State (Ct. 

### ofCr. App. 1937), 112 6. W. (26) 725, the concurring opinion of Judge Eawkina etatee that8 :Honorable Holvey Williams, page 2 (O-2309)

“There is not now, nor ever has been, an attempt in this state to define by statute what constitute0 e lottery. The term is defined by the statutes of only e few of the states. Corpus Jurie, vol. 

### 38, p. 288, note 10, llatr only **four,** but reya ‘that ouch deflnitionr zeldom vary in rubatanco from tho.ee eatebllrhed by the courta. 1 Ezving no deflnltlon In our Itatute, we murt reaort to the meaning given the term by popular usage 

### an determined by the varlouz courtr. 

### Whenthat lr done, it lr cleer that three thlngr muat concur to errtablllh a thing 81 a lotteryr (a) A prize or prizes; (2) the evard or diatrlbutlon of the prize or prizee by chance; (c) the payment either directly or indirectly by the perticipantr of e coneideretlon for the right or privilege of perticlpeting. Texea Jur., vol. 28, p. 409, Q2, deduces from our own ceaea tQe rule eteted, end it appears that in every case from our owncourt w&area scheme has been denounced 88 a lottery that the three elements mentioned are ahownby the fecte to have been present. See Rendle v. State, 42 Tex. 

### 580;Grant v. State, 

### 54Tex. Cr. R. 

### 403,ll2 S. W. 1068, 21 L. R. A., Iy. S., 

### 876,130 Am. St. Rep. 

### 897,16Ann. Cee. 

### 8441Prendergest YE. State, 41Tex. Cr. R. 

### 358,57S.Y. 850;Holomauv. State, 2 Tex. App. 

### 610,28A~I;Rep. 439, and other Texee ceeea cited in Texes Jur., zupre
. The 8amer)lle demanding the presence of the three elemente namedwill be found ateted in 

### 17Ruling Case Law, p. 1222, and 

### 38Corpue Jurie, p. 

### 286,with innmreble supporting ceaea cited under the text in each of maid rolumen."

Az atated in City of WinkVII. Qriffith AmueementCornpang, (Tex. sup. 

### ct.lg36),loos.w. (26)695:

“An analysis of this provision chows that the framers of the \ Conatltution condemned in emphatic terma the eetabllzhment and operation in this state of (a) ‘lotteries,’ (b) ‘gift enterprises,’ and (c) ‘other evasions involving the lottery principle.’ Lotteries only have been urohlbited br the Penal Code in accordance with the constitutional man- &e. tGiftVenterprisesf and ‘other evasions involving the lottery principle* nevertheleaa remain and stand condemnedby the Con&it&ion of the state 88 being against public policy. It Is hardly neceesery to argue that the ‘Bank Hight’ plan of the defendant in error, if not e lottery, 16 et the very leant a ‘gift enterpriee involving the lottery principle, 1axd obviously an evasion of the lottery lawa of the state. That ‘gift enterprleez’ ere a form of lottery eveeion ia 80 well known that courte take judicial knowledge of the plan. 

### 38C.J.p. 296,§ 14~Stete v. Bader, 24 Ohio H. P. (R.S.) 

### 186~.Moreover, ‘gift enterprl6es’ were well known in this state whenthe Constitution of the atete was formulated in 

### 1875and adopted in 

### 1876. State VI. Rankle, 41Tex. 292; Randle VII. Stete, 42 Tex. 

### 580. In the argument in favor of the appellant in Randle v. State, 42 Tex. 

### 580,q upre, distinguished counsel for the appellant in that case argued that ‘gift enterprises’ were so well known ‘en almost to be judicially proven.‘”Honorable Holvey Williams, page 3 (O-2309)

It le clear 

### rrw ypur letter that et leant txo of'the element8 emsentlal to conntltute a lottery are prone&. A prire lrr the recipient of tha prize 1s Gets-8 by chance. letheE?:lZd 

### ment,"thepaymenteither directly or 

### indirectly by the part~clpantr of a conrideratlon for the right or privilege of partlclpeting,* alro **preb** entt Webcllere that thir element lr minrlng.

Hopayment aither directly or indirectly Is deaan&ed of the recipient by the **donor** of the prize) nor, from the 

### fact!etated,do we meeany material lndueewnt to patronize the theetre. Each mubrcrlber l?zthe telephone directory haa en equal opportunity to win the **prlre,** either br re~lnlng at him telephone, frequenting thone placea on the street6 of the city vbere he mayhear the armouncement of~the &&ulng telephone number, 

### or,if he derlres, attending the theatre. The element of caneideretlon 16 

### notprerent.

Ye do not meanto be underrrtood aa holding that the rche~ dercrlbed ln your letter does not fall within the purview of Section 47 of Article III 

### ofthe Conetltutlon. Onthe contrary, webelieve that the scheme ia literally a "gift enterprlee" or "evr+an lnvolrlng the lottery principle" of the type which is condemuedby the Conetltutlon. Being c-d by the Conetltutlon, it is egalnmt the public policy of the State. If carried out by e corporation, its practical operation maybe found to constitute an abuse of the corporate franchine. city of Wink ve. Griffith AmueementCompany, supre. In the Penal Code, however, the Iagialature hen seen fit to carry out the conrtitutionalmandate only to the extent of prohibiting lotteries, end we hold that this schew doe8 not constitute a lottery. Verytruly youris AppRonm MY 23, 

### 1940
/a/ Gerald C. lknn
ATTORlIEY

GEHERALOFTEXAS 

### A!rroFinEY GBNERAL

OFTEXAS

By /e/ Walter R. Koch

Walter R. Koch 

### Aaoi~tant

JDS/O+l By /a/ S8mee.D. +&lea J-e D. Suu.llen

APPROVED OPINION CoMHITTE& BY/I/ BWB

. CHAIRMAW