Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1881-12-12
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
UNANIMOUS OPINION.

being ~ 70 establish and carry on inc
business Of providing for and giving pub
lie entertainments, In the State Of Nevada,
Of Q musical and scientific character. to
sell tickets Of admission to such entertain.
ments, and to purchase, hold and dis.
tribute among the holders Of such tickets
personal property, real estate, chooses In
action and other valuable things, upon
such terms and conditions and In such
manner aud at such times as may be de-
tsrmined by = Board Of Managers to be
selected for that purpose by the Board OF
Trustees Of this company" 1t is pro.
vided that SO much Of the proceeds Of said
entertainments "ss may be doomed proper
by the Board Of Trustees, but not less than
$4,000, from each entertainment, are TO
be placed In the State Treasury Of the
STATE Of Nevada 10 be used only for such
charitable and benevolent purposes a. may
b determined BY the Legislature Of the
State Of Nevada"
The "Actto Aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association In aiding In providing means
for the care and maintenance Of the In.
sane OF Nevada. and for other charitable
purposes" approved March 0, 1881, do
clsres that ''it shall DO lawful for tho No.
vada Benevolent Association OF the State
Of Nevada to give not exceeding Ave public
entertainments or concerts; to sell tickets
Of admission 10 tho same /; tO distribute
among the holders Of such tickets personal
property, real estate, things In action, de-
mands or other valusbles, and 10 regulate
the distribution Of all such property or
gifts by rattle or other schemes Of like char
scter." tStat. 1881. l66, Bee. ~
The information fled by tho Attorney
General alleges that respondents, as Trus-
tees Of said association, are. without war.
rant Of law, advertising. printing,
circulating and selling tickets for public
entertainments y = ~" and that they
base their rights to advertise, print, cir.
culato and sell tickets for the said public
exhibitions or entertainments, and to pur-
chase, use, hold and distribute amongst
the holders Of such tickets personal pro.
perry, real estate, chooses In action and
other valuable things" upon the Act OF
tho Legislature above referred to.
The facts set forth In tho information
are admitted by respondents TO be true.
Arc the acts Of respondents without war
rant Of law2
is tho Act OF the Legislature, approved
March 0, 1881, constitutional2
First-Is the scheme or enterprise In
which the Nevada Benevolent Associa'
ton " Is engaged . lottery2
This question Is answered In tho afirma-
tive by the decision Of this Court In er
parts blanchard, 0 New, l0A. Is that dc.
cision corroct2 1t certainly Is. 1t is sus.
taired by every decision that has boon
rendered by the various courts In the
United States upon this question.
Notwithstanding this fact, VIC are now
earnestly asked to declare that the musical
entertainment which tho Nevada Benevo-
lent Association proposes to give Is not q
lottery. Why not2 What Is o lottery !
Every scheme for the distribution OF prizes
by chance 10 o lottery. Governors of the
Almshouse OF New York Va. American Art
Union, z N. ", $50; Dunn ys. Tho Peo-
pie, 40 Ills, ACT State vs.. Shorts, 80 N.
j.; L., A0l ; Randle vs.. State, AZ Tex.
685 ChAvannah vs.. State, 40 Ala. 396
Commonwealth vs.. Manderield, 8 Phil,
459 United States ". Olney, l Abb, U.
g., 279.)
A lottery Is . gamo Of hazard In which
small sums are ventured for tho chance Of
obtaining greater. BELL vs.. State, 8
Sneed., 509.l
"a contrivanco for tho distribution OF
prizes by chance o reliance upon the
results Of hazard ; Q decision Of tho values
Of the adventurer's investment OF the
favors OF fortune" 10 . lottery. (WCoden
vs.. Shotwell, 4 Zab., 1861
"Where . ~pecuniary consideration Is
paid, and II Is determined by lot or chance.
according to some scheme held out to the
public what the party who pays the money
Is to have for 1t. or whether ho is to have
anything. II is o lottery" Estate vs..
Clarke. SO N. H., 1856 Hull VS.. Ruggles,
Sc N. Y, 427.) $3.50 \
1t makes no difference what namo ID
given to the scheme.
When the. element OF chance enters into
tho distribution Of prizes 1t Is . lottery,
without reference to tho name by which II
10 called.
che may choose to call his business o
gift sale," said the Court In Dunn vs.. Pso.
Pile, supra, "but IL 10 mono tho less . lot.
terry, and wo cannot permit him to evade
the penalties Of tho law by SO transparent
q device as Q mere change Of name. II II
differs from ordinary lotteries the differ.
enco lies chiefly In the fact that IL Is more
artfully contrived TO impose upon the ig.
norant and credulous, and Is. therefore,
moro thoroughly dishonest and injurious
10 society,""
"The name given to tho process and the
form Of the machinery used to accomplish
the object arc not material, provided tho
substance OF the transaction ~ o distribu.
tion or disposition Of property by lot"
Estate vs.. Clarke, supra.)
Courts will not inquire into the name,
but will determine the character Of the
scheme by the nature OF tho transaction
or business In which the parties arc en-.
gagged" (Randlo VS.. State, supra.)
"The character OF the scheme Is In no
wise changed by the charitable purpose
expressed In its title. nor by calling the
drawings entertainments or gift con-
ccrts.'" (Ex parto Blanchard, supra.)
"Tho fact that no plan Of distribution has
been determined upon does not relieve tho
scheme OF It's character a. o lottery"
(Thomas VS.. People, 90 Ills, 1881
"Nor 10 IL material" said the Court Of
Appeals In tho American Art Union case,
"to the question In hand that the prizes
were not known and designated when tho
tickets or chances were subscribed and
paid for. The scheme In this respect is
more Objectionable than Q scheme In which
the prizes are previously fixed. because II
affords less security to tho subscribers that
the chance purchased is worth the money
paid for IT,"
We arc Of opinion that tho facts stated
In tho articles Of incorporation, In the
statutes, and In the information, show that
the scheme Is u whereby the Legislature
Of this State, In consideration Of the sum
Of S250. 900, to DO placed in tho State
Treasury. to tho credit Of the "Insane and
Charitable Fund.-" attempted TO authorize
the managers Of tho Nevada Benevolent
Association " TO enrich their own pockets.
at the expense Of the people Of this and
other States, by holding out promises OF
the great and sudden gains that might DO
acquired by the ticket holders that
golden prizes would DO "the lure to In.
cite tho credulous and unsuspecting into
this scheme"
In the light Of all the facts that have
been presented Il would be absurd 10 say
that the managers Of this scheme are sim
ply prompted by deeds Of charity and pure
benevolence.
t. xha f.nn .od Ao.kh - xha daciotona