Evening journal., 1899-06-12
SQUIRE PRITCHETT'S ERROR
CONFRONTED WITH DlSAGREeABLE E
DUTY, HE FALTERS.

DlSAllSStlS CASE OF STATE VS.
DONALD I. NrALIsTER, OF THE
scHdILING DRY GOODS COMPANY.
CASE WILL BE PUSHED BEFORE
THE GRAND JURY.
on Friday a hearing before Magistrate
Prtchett was had In the case OF che
State vs.. Donald 1. McAllster. salesman
Of the schilHng Dry Goods Company.
charged with violating the statute relat-
ing TO gambling. The Witnesses in the
case were Charles w. Edwards. Harry
NJ Fnysinger. Donald l. McAlister and
Peter J. Ford. II. II. Ward, Esd. ap-
peared for the defense. The State was
not represented by am attorney. The dep
uiy attorney general having refused to
appear for THE State.
The statute under whieh ihe arrest was
made is ais follows:
II any person shall by himself his SER
want or agent or as the servant or agent
OF another. cell or dispose Of, or have IN
his possession with intent to sell or dis
pose Of, any lottery policy, certificate. or
anything by which such person or other
person promises or guarantees that any
particular number, character. ticket or|
certificate, shall In the event or on the
happening Of amy contingency In the ua-
ture Of q lottery, entitlo the purchaser
or holder to receive money, property. or
evidence Of debt or shall use or employ
any other device by which such person,
or any other person, promises or guaran-
tees as aforesaid every person so Offend
ing SHALL upon conviction thereof, by in
dlctment, forfeit and pay for the first Of
fense a fine OF one hundred dollars, and
In default Of payment shall be impris-
D. 4
every subsequent Offcnse shall forfeit and
pay a fine Of one hundred dollars, and be
imprisoned not less than one nor more
than two months. This act shall not be
deemed or taken to apply to the sale or
disposal of any authorized lottery tickets
whether the same be foreign or domestic
and whether such sale or disposal be by
single tickets. packages. or by certificate
thereof. Provided. That no authority Is
or shall be deemed to be given by this
act to sell or dispose. I'M any manner
whatsoever, Of amy ticket in any lottery
not authorized by the laws OF this State
unless the same would have been lawful
without the passage hereof
by this it viii be seen that every em-
p-oye of the concern, male or female.
who sells the goods Of the company ac-
cording to the terms of its Grand Gift
Enterprise" is liable to arrest, and who
knows but what evidence IS in hand
Ime testimony Of the witnesses for the
State showed that the ticket or certih-
cate on which 1.-THE warrant was sworn
out. was given to the person who pur-
chased goods of the defendant. servant
or agent OF the Schilllng Dry Goods Com
pany, at the same time and as a part Of
the same particular transaction in which
said purchaser paid to the defendant $3.50
for his purchases. including the said
ticket or certificate.
The defense set up the plea that only
the goods were sold; that the ticket was
given away; thalt such tickets could not
be purchased ait any price thaf the
goods We're sold for $3.50 and that no
charge was made for the ticket 1t was
admitted that the ticket was issued by
the employer Of the defendant.
II. II. Ward I'm addressing the magls-
trate, held THAT his client had a perfect
right to give away anything they wanted
to. and that his client had not violated
THE statute because It could not be
proved that his client had received any
thing for the ticket, but that the testi-
mony showed That the ticket or certlh-
cate, entitled ths holder to a chance in
one Of three prizes had been free gift.
without price. He STATED that the
same objection might be raised to the
giving away of trading stamps or Opera
House tickets, or anything else. etc.
In the absence of counsel for the State,
Mr.. Edwards asked for permission ITO aid
dressuhe court in reply no Mr. Ward He
contended That the State had made out "a
and that the defendant should be held for
trial. He contended tllalt in the transac-
tion an the essentials Of a lottery were
. present: that the defendant did dis
pose" of THE ticket contrary to the stat
ute that even to give" the ticket away
as had been testified to was I'm violation
Of the law. which forbids "any person
to "sell or dispose Of. or have in his
possession with intent to sell or dispose
Of" etc. He showed the distinction be-
tween trading stamps and the scheme in
question; IN giving trading stamps there
is no element of chance; a person saves
trading stamps and when a sufficient
number have been accumulated ne or she
goes out and picks out the auticle want.
ed, and gives up the trading stamps there.
| luI- anu lutlt ~ dn5vluttlg no tidilIt li
st.. though some states have decided thai
i even trading stamps are a violation OF
the spirit and intent OF the law.
Magistrate Pritcheht. IN declining tS
hold the defendant for trial said: "Well
I don think there is sufficient evidenc,
to hold lthis defendant on and dismiss
the case"
All we have to say on the subject q
that Magistrate Prftchett is either will
fully prejudIced in favor Of the continu
ance Of gambling In this manner to thi
detriment Of reputable merchants o
Wilmington, or that he IS Ignorant of tn
application Of plain English as set fortl
In the statute.
This case viii not end here, but win b
pushed before the grand jury. and shoul
a drawing be attempted as advertised
everybody connected Herewith VIII D
Il prosecuted without fear or favor.