Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-16
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
UNANIMOUS oprxrox.l

county. The object Of the corporation
being "to establish and carry on the
business OF providing for and giving pub
lie entertainments, In the State Of Nevada,
Of o musical and scientific character. to
sell tickets OF admission to such entertain.
ments, and to purchase, hold and dis
tribute among tho holders Of such tickets
personal property, real estate, chooses In
action and other valuable things. upon
such terms and conditions aud In such
manner and at such times as may DO do.
termined by a Board Of Managers to DO
selected for that purpose by the Board Of
Trustees OF this company" 1t is pro.
vided that so much Of tho proceeds Of said
entertainments "as may DO deemed proper
by the Board Of Trustees, but not less than
$50. 900, from each entertainment, arc to
be placed In the State Treasury Of tho
| STATE Of Nevada to DO used only for such
charitable and benevolent purposes as may
be determined by the Legislature Of the
State Of Nevada"
Tho "Act to Aid the Nevada Benevolent
Association In aiding In providing means
for tho care and maintenance Of the in
sane Of Nevada, and for other charitable
purposes approved March 0, 1881, de-
clares that cit shall be lawful for tho No.
| yada Benevolent Association OF the State
Of Nevada to give not exceeding five public
entertainments or concerts; TO sell tickets
OF admission to tho 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, l66, Sec. ~
Tho 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 y Y a." aud that they
I" base their rights to advertise, print, cir.
culate and sell tickets for the said public
exhibitions or entertainments, and ~ 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 tho information
are admitted by respondents to DO true.
Arc tho acts Of respondents without war
rant Of law2
Is tho Act Of tho Legislature, approved
March o, 1881, constitutional
First-ls tho scheme or enterprise In
which tho Nevada Benevolent Associa.
tion" is engaged q lotteryp
This question is answered in tho affirma-
tive by the decision Of this Court in er
| cision correctp 1t certainly is. 1t is sus.
| t.t,al IL, par, .l..t.t,, ,l.N haa ha.n
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 tho Nevada Denevo-
lent Association proposes TO give is not q
lottery. Why n0t2 What Is o lottery T?
Every scheme for tho distribution Of prizes
by chance Is q lottery. tGoyernor's Of the
Almshouse Of New York vs.. American Art
Union. z N. w.. $50; Dunn vs.. The Pco-
pie, 40 Ills, 467 State VI. Shorts, % N.
j.; L., 40l Randle vs.. State, AZ Tex,
585 ; Chavannah vs.. State, 40 Ala. 396 ;
Commonwealth Va. Mandertield, 8 Phil,
$50 ; United States VS.. Olney, l Abb, U.
D., 279.)
A lottery is o gamo OF hazard In which
small sums arc venturcd for tho chance Of
obtaining greater. BELL vs.. State, 8
Sneed., 509.I
"a continuance for tho distribution OF
prizes by chance q reliance upon tho
results Of hazard q decision Of tho values
Of the adventurer's investment Of tho
favors OF fortune" Is q lottery. Wooden
vs.. Shotwell, 4 Zab., 1861
"Where q %pecuniary consideration is
paid, and II is determined by lot or chance.
according to some scheme held out to the
public what tho party who pays tho money
Is to have for 1t, or whether ho IL to have
anything, IL is q lottery" Estate vs..
Clarke, IS n. H., 335; Hull vs.. Iluggles.
~ N. y, 427.) .
1t makes no difference what name Is
given to tho scheme.
When the element Of chance enters into
the distribution Of prizes it is o lottery.
without reference to the name by which 1t
IL called.
"He may choose to call his business o
gift SALE" said tho Court in Dunn VI. PEG.
pie, supra, "but II is none the less q lot.
terry, and VIC cannot permit him to ovade
the penalties Of the law by so transparent
q device as u nero change Of name. II 1t
differs from ordinary lotteries the differ
enco lies chiefly In the fact that II Is more
artfully contrived TO impose upon tho ig-
norant and credulous, and is, therefore.
moro thoroughly dishonest and injurious
to society,""
"The name given to the process and tho
form OF tho machinery used to accomplish
the object arc not material, provided tho
substance Of tho transaction Is o distribu.
ton or disposition Of property by lot"
Estate w. Clarke, supra.)
Courts will not inquire into tho name,
but will determine the character Of the
scheme by tho nature Of tho transaction
or business in which the parties are en-
gagged" (Iiandlo 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-
certs.'" (Ex partc blanchard. supra.)
"Thc fact that no plan Of distribution has
been determined upon does not relieve the
scheme Of its character as q lottery"
Thomas vs.. People. 50 Ills. 1851
"Nor Is II 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 It
affords less security to 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 is ono whereby tho Legislature
OF this State, In consideration Of tho sum
Of $3.50, 900, to DO placed in the State
Treasury, to tho credit Of the Insane and
Charitable Fund.-" attempted to authorize
tho managers Of the 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 tho ticket holders; that
golden prizes would DO "the lure to In.
cite the credulous and u~nsuspecting into
this scheme"
In the light OF all the facts that have
been presented II would DO absurd to say
that the managers Of this scheme are sim
ply prompted by deeds Of charity and pure