Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-01-03
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
UNANIMOUS OPINION. |

county. The object OF the corporation
being "to establish and carry on tho
business Of providing for and giving pub
lie entertainments, in the State OF Nevada,
Of 0 musical and scientific character, TO
sell tickets Of admission to such entertain.
ments, and 10 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 and at such times as may DO do
termined by q Board Of Managers to be
selected for that purpose by tho Board OF
Trustees Of this company" It Is pro.
vided that 30 much Of the proceeds OF said
entertainments ''as may BIZ deemed proper
by the Board Of Trustees, but not less than
$50. 000, from each entertainment, arc 10
DO placed In the State Treasury OF the
State Of Nevada to be used only for such
charitable and benevolent purposes a. may
be determined by the Legislature OF the
State Of Nevada"
Tho "Act to Aid tho Nevada Benevolent
Association In aiding In providing means
for the care and maintenance Of the In.
a Of Nevada, and for other charitable
purposes" (approyed March o, 1881, do.
clsres that alt shall be lawful for the Ne.
vada Benevolent Association OF the State
Of Nevada TO give not exceeding five public
entertainments or concerts; TO sell tickets
Of admission to the same to distribute
among the holders OF such tickets personal
property, real estate, things In action, do
mands or other valuables, and to regulate
the distribution Of all such property or
gifts by rattle or other schemes Of like char
acter." (Stat. 1881, lG6, Sec. ~
The information filed by the 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 a." and that they
/" base their rights 10 advertise. print, cir.
culate 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.
| perty, real estate, chooses In action and
other valuable things" upon the Act Of
the Legislature above referred TO.
The facts set forth In the information
are admitted by respondents to DO true.
Are the acts Of respondents without war
rant Of lawf
Is tho Act Of tho Legislature, approved
March ., 1881. constitutionalf
First-Is tho scheme or enterprise In
| which tho "NevsdA Benevolent Assoda.
tion" Is engaged . lottery2
This question 10 answered In tho afirma-
tive by tho decision Of this Court In er
parts blanchard, . New, l04. Is that de-
cision correct? II certainly Is. 1t Is sus.
taired by every decision that has been
rendered by tho various courts in the
United States upon this question.
Notwithstanding this fact, wo arc now
earnestly asked to declare that the musical
entertainment which the Nevada Denevo.
lent Association proposes TO give Is not Q
lottery. Why not? What IL o lottery ?
Every scheme for the distribution Of prizes
by chance Is . lottery. Governors VI the
Almshouss Of New York vs.. American Art
Union. Z n. ". $50; Dunn vs.. The Peo-
pie. Az Ills. 467 State vs.. Shorts, 80 N.
| j.; L., 4Ul ; handle vs.. State, AZ Tex,
685 Chavannah vs.. State, 40 Ala, 3y6
Commonwealth vs.. Mandcrield. 8 Phil,
$50 I; United States vs.. Olney, l Abb, U.
b., 279.)
A lottery is Q gamo Of hazard In which
small sums arc yentured for the chance OF
obtaining greater. BELL VS.. State, 0
Sneed., 609.l
"a contrivsnce for tho distribution OF
prizes by chance 0 reliance upon the
results Of hazard ; Q decision Of the values
OF the advcnturer's investment OF the
favors Of fortune" 10 q lottery. wooden
VS.. Shotwell, 4 Zab., 1861
"where . ~pecuniary consideration 10
paid. aud II IL determined by lot or chance.
according TO some scheme held out to the
public what the party who pays the money
10 to have for 1t, or whether he Is to have
anything. 1t 10 q lottery" Estate VS..
Clarke, 50 N. H., 335 Hull vs.. Ruggles.
SO n. Y, ALL . =
1t makes no difference what name IL
given to the scheme.
When the element Of chance enters into
tho distribution Of prizes 1t Is Q lottery.
without reference " the name by which II
IL called.
"He may choose to call his business O
gift salo." said the Court In Dunn w. Peo-
plo, supra, "but IL 10 none tho less . lot.
terry, and we cannot permit him to evade
the penalties Of the law by 30 transparent
Q device a. q mere change Of name. II II
differs from ordinary lotteries the differ.
ence lies chiefly In the fact that 1t Is more
artfully contrived TO impose upon the ig'
norant and credulous, and Is, therefore,
more thoroughly dishonest and injurious
TO society,""
"The name given 10 the process and the
form Of tho machinery used to accomplish
the object arc not material, provided the
substance Of the transaction IL . distribu.
tion or disposition Of property by lot"
(Stato W. Clarke, supra.)
Courts will not inquire into the name,
but will determine the character Of the
scheme by tho nature OF the transaction
or business In which the parties are en-
gagged" (Randle vs.. State, supra.)
"Tho character Of the scheme 10 In NO
wise changed by the charitable purpose
expressed in It's title, nor by calling the
drawings entertainments or gift con
certs.'" (Ex parte Blanchard. supra.)
"The fact that NO plan OF distribution has
been determined upon does not relieve the
scheme of Its character as Q lottery"
Thomas vs.. People. 80 Ills, 1851
"Nor 10 It MATERIAL" said tho Court OF
Appeals In the American Art Union case,
Ito the question in hand that the prizes
were not known and designated when the
tickets or chances were subscribed and
paid for. The scheme In this respect Ia
more Questionable than Q scheme In which
the prizes are previously fixed, because II
affords less security 10 the subscribers that
the chance purchased is worth the money
paid for It,"
We are Of opinion that tho facts stated
In the articles Of incorporation. In the
statutes, and In the information. show that
the scheme 10 one whereby the Legislature
OF this State, In consideration OF tho sum
Of $3.50, 900, to DO placed In tho State
Treasury. to the credit Of the =" Insane and
Charitable Fund.-" attempted to authorize
the managers Of tho "Nevada Benevolent
Association " to enrich their OWE 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 the credulous and unsuspecting into
this scheme"
In the light Of all the facts that have
been presented Il would DO absurd to say
that the managers Of this scheme are sim.
-