The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1903-12-26

ing can be secured than that the person
whoe promotes or is concerned in man
aging or drawing a lottery is an offender
against that statute, regardless of wlieth-
er the means employed is an old-fashion-
ed ticket scheme or a modern mechanical
device. The ends accomplished are the
same.
1t would be absurd to maintain that
a man exhibit machine, the operation
Of which embodics all the essential prin.
eiples OF lottery, and still not be guilty
Of offending against the statute prohibit
ing lotteries, simply because the machine
does the business.
To substantiate the position that the
operating or exhibiting Of slot ma.
shine is a lottery, reference is here made
to some decisions of courts of last re.
sort in some other states in cases in
which thi question was before the court.
And it may here be added that in con.
sidering these decisions it is not mate.
rial whether or not The statutes in those
states are OF are not in substance the
same as our own. The essential point
in all of these cases is whether or not
4 slot machine OF the kind involved in
each case is lottery within the accept.
cd meaning Of that term. In each case
the court held in the affirmative.
Loiseau vs., State (Alabamal, 81 Am
st. Rep. "a.
Prendergast vs.. State Texas, 81 S.
w. Rep. $50.
Kolshorn vs.. State, 81 Ga. S43.
The case of Prendergast vs.. State, Al
Tex. CIR. Rep. 1858, 81 S. w. Rep. $50,
was trial for establishing lottery,
where the evidence was shown that the
LOTTERY was operated by slot machine,
md there was no controversy as to the
'ssential portions of the testimony which
made the device lottery and conclusive.
y showed that it was a lottery. The
,ourt held that it was not error for the
.ourt in its charges to assume and in.
,truct the jury that a slot machine was
! lottery. The court said: appellant
complains that the court instructed the
ury that a slot machine was a lottery,
m the ground that this was taking a
question of fact from the consideration
If the jury. This question resolves it,
self into the proposition as to what the
proof showed. The evidence establishes
these facts without controversy: That
he alleged lottery was operated by means
If a slot machine, which was about five
'eet high; that on the inside thereof
vas certain machinery, so constructed as
TO make it work automatically; that
here were five slots of different colors;
hat if you put nickel into THE slot of
either red or black color, and, in falling
nut the machine happened TO touch a GER
ain spring, it would set the machinery
in motion, open certain valve, and pay
put dime into a little pocket, which
vas the winning. And so of the other
olors. If the nickel did not happen to
touch the right spring to make it pay,
it would not pay anything. OF course,
he person depositing the nickel in one
Of the slots would not always win, and
whether such person won or lost, would
depend upon the internal mechanism and
appliances inside of the machine, and
whether in falling it would touch GER
ain groove or spring, or something else
hat would open the valve below and let
he nickels out. The witness says there
vas no keeper or exhibitor presiding over
t. in charge of the machine; it was au.
omatic and did all its own work. The
witness would not say to whom the
money went that was lost; that Premier.
sast tappcllant) owned the saloon where
ne machine was kept. 1t was further
!hown that he allowed it TO be placed in
lis saloon, and he was there every day
md saw it in operation, and allowed it TO
Ne used there, and in the manner describ,
d. This statement, according to our i'm,
Outstanding Of the definition, constitutes
! lottery, that is, a game of hazard or