Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-03-06
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
~TuSASrxous oprSroN,l

county. Inc object OF the corporauon
being "to establish and carry on the
business Of providing for and giving pub
lie entertainments, In the State OF Nevada,
offs 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 ct such times as may DO 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 30 much Of the proceeds OF said
entertainments ''as may be deemed proper
BY the Board Of Trustees, but not less than
$50. 900, 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
State Of NevadA."
The "Act to Aid the Nevads Benevolent
Association In aiding In providing means
for the care and maintenance OF tho In.
sane Of Nevada, and for other charitable
purposes" approved March Q, 1881, de-
clares that "it shall be lawful for the Ne.
vada Benevolent Association Of the State
Of Nevada TO give not exceeding 1--WE public
entertainments or concerts; to sell tickets
Of admission 10 the same ; ~ 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." (Stat. 1881, l66, Bee. ~
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 = q" and that they
I" base their rights 10 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
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 the Act Of the Legislature, approved
March 0, 1881, constitutional
First-Is the scheme or enterprise In
which the "Nevada Benevolent Associs-
ton Is engaged . lotteryf
This question 10 answered In th6afirms-
tive by the decision OF this Court In &c
parts Blanchard, 0 New, l04. Is that de-
cision corrcctf It certainly Is. 1t Is 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 the Nevada Benevo-
lent Association proposes TO give Is not .
lottery. Why notp What Is . lottery 2
Every scheme for the distribution Of prizes
by chance Is . lottery. Governors Of the
Almshouse Of New York W. American Art
Union, z N. ", 239; Dunn vs.. The Poo.
Pile, 40 Ills. ACT; State vs.. Shorts, 81 N.
j.; L., 40l handle vs.. State, AZ Tex,
685 /; Chavannsh vs.. State, 40 Ala, 500 ;
Commonwealth vs.. Msnderfeld, 3 Phil,
459 I; United States vs.. 0lney, 1 Abb, U.
g., 279.)
A lottery Is . gamo Of hazard In which
small sums arc ventured for the chance OF
obtaining greater. (Bell VS.. State, s
Sneed., $685.
"a continuance for the distribution OF
prizes by chance ; . reliance upon the
results Of hazard q decision Of tho values
Of the advonturer's investment Of the
favors OF fortune" Is q lottery. Wooden
vs.. Shotwell, 4 Zab., 1852
"Where . pecuniary consideration Is
paid. and 1t Is determined by lot or chance.
according TO some scheme held out to tho
public what tho party who pays the money
IL 10 have for IL, or whether he is to have
anything, IL 10 . lottery" Estate vs..
Clarke. So N. H., 335 Hull vs.. Ruggles.
SO N. Y, 427.) =
1t makes no difference what nams 10
given TO the scheme.
When tho element Of chance enters into
the distribution Of prizes 1t Is o lottery.
without reference to the namo by which 1t
10 called.
"He may choose TO call his business Q
gift SALE" said the Court In Dunn W. PEG.
pie, supra, "but 1t Is nono the less o lot.
terry, and wo cannot permit him to evade
tho penalties Of the law by so transparent
Q device Is Q mere change Of name. II IL
differs from ordinary lotteries the differ.
enco lies chiefly In the fact that II 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 to the process and tho
form Of the machinery used to accomplish
the object are not material, provided the
substance Of the transaction II o distribu.
ton or disposition Of property by lot"
Estate W.. Clarke, supra.)
Courts will not inquire into tho name,
but will determine tho character Of the
scheme by the nature Of tho transaction
or business In which the parties are en-
gagged" (Randlo vs.. State, supra.)
"The character Of the scheme Is 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 n o plan OF distribution has
been determined upon does not relieve the
scheme Of Its character a. . lottery"
Thomas W. People. 80 Ills, 1881
"Nor is IL material" said the Court Of
Appeals In the American Art Union case,
"to tho 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 Is
moro 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
psid for It,"
We arc Of opinion that the facts stated
In the articles Of incorporation, In the
statutes. and In the information. show that
the scheme 10 n whereby the Legislature
Of this State, In consideration Of the sum
Of $250. 900. to DO placed In the State
Treasury, to the credit Of tho "Insane 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 DO
acquired by the ticket holders; that
prizes would be "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 10 say
that the managers Of this scheme are sim.
ply prompted by deeds Of charity aud purc
koan,olanna