Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1913-04-04
KNOCKOUT FOR LOTTERIES
Supreme Court Says Common Prize
DRAWINGS are Unlawful,

His claim has for its sole founda-
ton q title alleged to have been ac-
uuired by reason of the fact that he
held, in violation Of the laws Of the
state, the winning card in a lottery
contest, and that the range was drawn
as the prize in violation of the laws
of the state" said the supreme court
yesterday in a decision Of Associate
Justice Woods reversing the Union
county court in the case of T. j.
Roundtree against HArdella Ingle and
w. F. Ingle from Union county.
According to the supreme court, the
Bailey Furniture and Lumber COM
pany of Union issued a printed circu-
lar announcing that a $65 range
would be given free to the customer
holding a certain numbered card. This
circular Is alleged to have been issued
in 1911.
"The card numbered 1915 was drawn
from the box and upon that card being
presented by the defendant, Ardella
Ingle, the range was delivered to her."
The decision sets out that T. j.
Roundtree, the plaintiff, then brought
this action in a magistrates court to
recover the range from Ardeila Ingle.
substance as follows: Plaintiff made
Lumber company and received cards
numbered from 1904 to 1889; in conse-
quence Of hearing that 1860 was the
number of the card drawn, he dropped
all Of his cards in the yard; when he
found out that the card drawing the
range was 1916 which he had held, he
tried to find 1t among those thrown
out but failed" ,.,...
Ardella Ingle gave testimony to the
effect that the card number 1916 had
been secured by her following pur-
chase.
The magistrate held as matters Of
fact that the plaintiff originally held
the card; that 1t was among those
which he dropped in his yard, and
that some one had found 1t there and
had given it to the defendant, Ardella
Ingle, and he adjudged the range to be
the property Of the plaintiff IT. j.
Roundtree.)" The case was appealed
and the circuit court affirmed the ver-
dict Of the magistrate.
The supreme court in its decision
reversed the case.
There can be no doubt that the
scheme under which the winning card
was drawn was a lottery" says the
supreme court.
Our statute makes not only the
promoter of q lottery, but the adven-
lures in 1t liable to indictment. The
purchase being a criminal act, the
purchaser can base no legal claim
thereon for the money paid to the
seller or to the prize allotted to his
ticket. Indeed his whole transaction is
without the pale of the law, and he
can not invoke the aid Of the courts In
the enforcement of any claim depend
ing upon 1t. The purchaser OF lot
terry ticket in this state Is therefore in
different plight from one who loses
money in gambling or dealing In cot
ton futures, who may recover the
amount paid out. Civil code OF 1912,
sections 3417 to 1923. The plaintiff in
the present case having acquired his
ticket in violation Of the statute which
made the acquisition Of 1t criminal 1t
follows that his claim does not fall
under cases like Martin VS.. Richard
son, KY, X19 L. r. A, 692 (xxx) de-
cided on the ground that the purchas-
er was not guilty Of any criminal act,
the statute against lotteries being
enacted for his protection against
those which conduct them"
The supreme court concluded:
There was no Independent contract
between the plaintiff and the defend
ant, that the plaintiff should have the
range or that the defendant Would
accept it or hold 1t for him as his
agent. His claim has for its sole foun-
dation title alleged to have been ac-
quired by reason Of the fact that ne
held in violation Of the laws OF the
state the winning card in lottery
contest and that the range was drawn
as the prize in violation of the laws OF
the state. There is no Independent or
collateral contract Of any kind upon
which the plaintiff can depend. Using
an extreme Illustration: If, after the
drawing and before the delivery to
the plaintiff by the merchant, the
range had been stolen from the store,
the plaintiff could not have recovered
from the thief because he would have
had no basis Of a claim except a lot
terry card and a lottery drawing both
denounced by the statute law Of the
state."-Columbia State, Thursday.