Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-09
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
UNANIMOUS orrxrox.l

On the 10th day OF February. A. D.
1881, articles Of incorporation Of the "Ne-
vada Benevolent Association" wero filed
In the ofioe OF the County Clerk Of Storey
county. The object Of tho corporation
being ITO establish and carry on the
business Of providing for and giving pub
lie entertainments, In the State Of Nevada.
Of . musical and scientific character, to
sell tickets Of admission 10 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 ct such times as may be do
termined by . Board OF Managers to DO
selected for that purpose by tho Board OF
Trustees Of this company" II 10 pro.
vided that 20 much Of the proceeds OF said
entertainments 'as may be deemed proper
By the Board Of Trustees, but not less than
$4,000, from each entertainment, are TO
b placed In the State Treasury Of the
STATE Of Nevada 10 be used only for such
charitable and benevolent purposes - 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
sane Of Nevada. and for other charitable
purposes'' approved March Q, 1881, de-
olares that ''it shall be lawful for the Ne.
vada Benevolent Association Of the State
Of Nevada 10 give not exceeding Ave public
entertainments or concerts; 10 sell tickets
Of admission 70 the same ; ~ distribute
among the holders Of such tickets personal
property, real estate, things In action, de-
mands or other valusbles, and TO regulate
the distribution Of all suoh property or
gifts by rattle or other schemes Of like char
acter." tStat. 1881, iG6, Sec. ~
The information fled by the Attorney.
General alleges that respondents, ~ Trus-
tees Of said association, are. without war
rant Of law, advertising, printing.
circulating and selling tickets for public
entertainments = . o." and that they
{" base their rights 10 advertise, print, cir.
oulate and sell tickets for the 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 and
other valuable things" upon the Act Of
tho Legislature above referred to.
The facts set forth In the information
are admitted by respondents TO be true.
Are the acts Of respondents without war
rant Of law2
Is the Act OF the Legislature, approved
March 0, 1881, con~stitutional2
First-ls the scheme or enterprise In
which the "Nevada Benevolent Associa.
ton " 10 engaged . lotteryf
This question 10 answered In the afirms-
tive by the decision Of this Court In sr
parts Blanchard, Q New, l04. Is that de-
cision correct2 II certainly 10. II 10 sus.
taired BY every decision that has been
rendered by the various courts In the
United States upon this question.
Notwithstanding this fact, we 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 . lottery 2
Every scheme for the distribution Of prizes
by chance 10 . lottery. Governors Of the
Almshouse Of New York W. American Art
Union. Z N. ", $50; Dunn vs.. The Poo
pie. Az Ills, 467 State W. Shorts. 80 N.
j.; L., 40l |; Randle vs.. State. AZ Tex,
685 ; Chavannsh ". State, 40 Ala. 396 I;
Commonwealth VI. MAnderneld. 8 Phil,
4o9 F; United States VS.. 0lney, I Abb, U.
b., 279.)
A lottery IL Q game Of hazard In which
small sums are ventured for the chance Of
obtaining creator. tBell vs.. State, 8
Sneed., 509.)
"a contrivance for the distribution OF
prizes BY chance /; . reliance upon the
results Of hazard |; . decision Of the values
Of the adventurer's investment Of the
favors OF fortune" 10 alottery. wooden
VI. Shotwell, 4 Zab., 1852
"Where . pecuniary consideration Is
paid. and Il Is 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 II, or whether he 10 to have
anything, IL 10 . lottery" Estate vs..
Clarke, 50 N. H., 1856 ; Hull vs.. Ruggles,
Sc N. Y, 427.) So
1t makes no difference what name 10
given TO the scheme.
When the element OF chance enters into
the distribution Of prizes IL 10 Q lottery,
without reference TO the name by which II
10 called.
"He may choose TO call his business q
gift SALE" said tho Court In Dunn W. PEG.
pie. supra, "bnt II 10 mono tho less . lot.
terry. and We cannot permit him to ovade
the penalties Of the law by so transparent
Q device as . mere change OF name. II u
differs from ordinary lotteries the differ.
ence lies chiefly In the fact that II 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 are not material, provided tho
substance Of the transaction Is q distribu.
tion or disposition Of property by lot"
Estate W. Clarke. supra.)
"Courts will not inquire into tho name,
but will determine tho character OF tho
scheme by the nature OF the transaction
or business In which tho parties are en-
gagged" (Randls vs. State, supra.)
"The character Of the scheme 10 In NO
wise changed by tho charitable purpose
expressed In Its title, nor by calling tho
drawings entertainments or gift con.
certs.'" (Ex parte Blanchard, supra.)
"Tho fact that no plan Of distribution has
been determined upon does not relieve tho
scheme Of Its character as . lottery"
Thomas vs.. People. SO Ills. 1881
"Nor 10 Il material" said the Court Of
Appeals 10 the American Art Union case,
''to 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 10
more Objectionable than 4 scheme In which