Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-01-06
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
UNANIMOUS OPINION. |

COuutys 4uo Oulect Ot tnb CUIpuThtiou
being "to establish and carry on tho
business OF providing for and giving pub
lie entertainments. In the State Of Nevada,
off 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 and at such times as may BIO do.
termined by . Board Of Managers to be
selected for that purpose by the Board OF
Trustees OF this company" II 10 pro.
vided that 80 much OF the proceeds OF said
entertainments Gas may be deemed proper
by the Board Of Trustees, but not less than
$50. 200. from each entertainment, are TO
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"
The "Act to Aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association In aiding In providing means
for the care and maintenance Of the In.
q n Of Nevada. and for other charitable
purposes" approved March o, 1881, de-
clares that at shall DO lawful for the Ne.
vada Benevolent Association Of the State
Of Nevada TO give not exceeding i've public
entertainments or concerts; to sell tickets
Of admission 70 the same ; to distribute
among the holders Of such tickets personal
property, real estate, things In action, de-
mands or other valuables, and TO regulate
the distribution OF all such property or
gifts by rattle or other schemes OF like char
acter." tStat. 1881, i66, Sec. ~
The information filed by the Attorney.
General alleges that respondents, IS Trus-
tees Of said association, are, without war
rant OF law. advertising. printing,
circulating and selling tickets for public
entertainments e." and that they
81 base their rights to advertise, print, cir.
culate and sell tickets for tho said public
exhibitions or entertainments, and 10 pur.
chase, use, hold and distribute amongst
the holders Of such tickets personal pro.
perty, real estate, chooses In action aud
other valuable things" upon the Act Of
tho Legislature above referred to.
Tho facts set forth In the information
are admitted by respondents to DO true.
Are the acts Of respondents without war.
rant Of law2
Is the Act Of the Legislature, approved
March Q, 1881, constitutional
First-Is tho scheme or enterprise In
which the "Nevada Benevolent Associa.
ton " is engaged q lottery2
This question Is answered In tho afirml-
tive by the decision Of this Court In er
parfe blanchard, 0 New, l0i. Is that de-
cision correct2 1t 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, We arc now
earnestly asked to declare that the musical
entertainment which the Nevada Beneyo-
lent Association proposes to give Is not q
lottery. Why not? What Is Q lottery 2
Every scheme for the distribution Of prizes
by chance Ii . lottery. Governors Of the
Almshouse Of New York W. American Art
Union. z N. ". 239; Dunn VS.. Tho Peo.
pie, AZ Ills, ACT State W.. Shorts, % N.
j.; L., 40l handle vs.. State, AZ Tex,
5S5 I; Chavannah W. State, 40 Ala. 396 /;
Commonwealth vs.. Msnderield, 8 Phil,
459 United States vs.. 0lney, l Abb, u.
H., Y79.)
A lottery is Q game Of hazard In which
small sums are venturcd for tho chance Of
obtaining greater. BELL vs.. State. s
Sneed., 509.)
"a contrivanco for tho distribution Of
prizes by chance ; . reliance upon tho
results Of hazard I; o decision Of the values
Of tho a~dventurer's investment OF tho
favors OF fortune 10 Q lottery. Wooden
vs.. Shotwell, 4 Zab., 1861
"Where Q p~ecuniary consideration 10
.natI anl 10 Ia l.s..rus..l -. la ~. nl..1.
according to some scheme held out to the
public what tho party who pays the money
Is to have for IL, or whether ho is to have
anything, II is . lottery" Estate vs..
Clarke, 81 N. H., 335 ; Hull vs.. Ruggles,
SO N. Y, 427.)
1t makes no difference what name Is
given to the scheme.
When the element OF chance enters into
tho distribution Of prizes IL 10 Q lottery.
without reference to tho name by which 1t
Is called.
"Hs may choose to call his business 0
gift salo," said the Court In Dunn W. PEG.
pie, supra, "but II Is none the less . lot.
terry, and wo cannot permit him to ovade
the penalties Of the law by SO transparent
. device a. o mere change OF name. II II
differs from ordinary lotteries tho differ.
ence lies chiefly In the fact that II 10 more
artfully contrived to impose upon the ig.
norant and oredulous. and is, therefore,
more thoroughly dishonest and injurious
10 society,""
"Tho name given to the process and tho
form Of the machinery used to accomplish
tho object arc not material, provided tho
substance Of the transaction Is 0 distribu.
ton or disposition Of property by lot"
Estate vs.. Clarke. supra.)
Courts will not inquire into the name,
but will determine tho character Of the
scheme by the nature Of tho transaction
or business In which the parties are en-.
gagged" tRandlo vs.. State, supra.)
"The character Of tho scheme 10 In no
wise changed by tho charitable purpose
expressed in Its title, nor by calling the
drawings entertainments or gift con-
certs.'" (Ex parto Blanchard. supra.)
"The fact that no plan Of distribution has
been determined upon does not relieve tho
scheme Of It's character as q lottery"
Thomas vs.. People, 50 Ills, 1881
"Nor is Il material" said the Court Of
Appeals In the 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 o scheme In which
the prizes arc previously fixed. because II
affords less security 10 the subscribers that
tho chance purchased 10 worth the money
paid for It,"
We arc Of opinion that tho facts stated
In the articles Of incorporation, In tho
statutes, and In the information, show that
the scheme Is one whereby the Legislature
Of this State, In consideration Of tho sum
Of $3.50, 900, to DO placed In the State
Treasury. to the credit Of the "lnsane and
Charitable Fund.-" attempted TO authorize
the managers Of the Nevada Benevolent
Association " to enrich their own pockets.
at the expense Of tho people OF this and
other States, by holding out promises OF
the great and sudden gains that might be
acquired by the ticket holders; that
golden prizes would be the lure to In.
cite the credulous and unsuspecting INTO
this scheme"
In the light Of all tho facts that have
been presented Il would DO absurd to say
that the managers OF this scheme are SIM
nly nromnted nv deeda of charity and puro