The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1916-04-05
Defense Claims Awarding of
Premiums Was in Dis
cretiOn of Firm
BRIEFS FILED IN
FURNITURE CASE
Contract Transparent Disguise, Says
Prosecution - Thinks Court Should
Be as Credulous as ''Dupes' in Siz-
ing Up Scheme.

1AOS0SuV1oA AA4uhS SoITG Snould
Be as Credulous as "Dupes' in Siz-
ing Up Scheme.
Briefs have been fled in the mum.
cipal court in the case Of the state
against NJ. Hirsch, an employe of the
United Furniture company of Boston,
who was tried last week on a charge
OF aiding in the conduct of a lottery.
Judge Frank E. Barber expects to give
his decision in a few days. /
The brief of the state maintains that
the defendant or some other emplove,
of the company told every witness for
the state, who was a member of the
Bratt!eboro furniture club organized bv
representatives of the company, that
there was a drawing in Boston every
week and that the lucky person would
get prize. What afterwards happen,
ed bears out the declaration that there
was drawing in Boston and that the
luckT person would get prize Some
OF the. witnesses got furniture to the
value OF $3.50 for quarter, other for
fifty cents, others for a dollar and so
on up to six or seven dollars. This
confirms the fact that a drawing or
distribution of prizes by chance as de-
scribed in the uncoDtradieted evidence
of the declarations of the respondent
did actually take place. If il did. then
the respondent is guilty of aiding III
a lottery by selling the chances in
Brattleboro. 1t is not denied by the
respondent s evidence that these dee
larations were actually made to the
state s Witnesses
/ (1utlininfr ha r1oiry. Of Io
! that the distribution of prizes was
made for services rendered. the state
brief continues:
The manager, who testified for the
respondent, stated that he had no
knowledge Of or acquaintance with any
of the people who went into this
scheme; that however the selection of
the recipients of the prizes was made
it was arbitrarily and wholly a mat
ter of chance in so far as the invest
orS in the scheme We're concerned. 1t
certainly would be an astounding state
of facts if this respondent and his co
cons?irators after getting their vic
tins to 90 into this scheme by decla-
rations that it was a lottery, should 90
unWhipped of justice on a defense that
the scheme was one of obtaining mon
= cy by false pretenses. There can be
: no doubt from the evidence, that the
scheme was lottery, carried on in the
transparent disguise of the contract
There can be no doubt that there
would have been less than 10 partici
pants in this scheme in Brattleboro in
" stead Of $50 il it was a Legitimate
selling enterprise instead of a lottery
The bait of the lottery was held out by
the respondent and his co-conspirator
= to inveigle the unsuspecting with graf
=, flying results to the guilty parties.
= This court should now give th
, statements and declarations which tn
, respondent and his confederates mad
=, to their victims, face value and fint
p that the scheme was q lottery and no
,r permit them to juggle it into anothe
p sort of misdemeanor not described i
~ the complaint as defense.
~ cit would not seem amiss for tn
court to be at least as credulous as tn
dupes of the respondent in reaching
conclusion as to what the scheme reall
was.
"But, if the selection had been mad
s. as the manager testified, the schem
would have still been a lottery. As
matter of fact no services were pc
N formed which would amount to an
an consideration for the prizes. I'll
lg manager had no knowledge or aequain
h ance with the people holding til
p chances. If he took list of $50 {
'e- their names and selected one arbitr
n rily, it would be as much of lotte1
nd as if he drew the name out of ha
sh The selected participant was gettiT
d. something for practically nothing al
Dr. by q method of chance in which tt
te- participant had nothing to say, ov
which he had no CONTROL and in Whit
he could do nothing to influence tt
selection The judgment III this ca
should be guilty
est The respondent s brief is from t
office of Hale & Dickerman of BOst'
signed by that law firm and James
lsh Richardson, who represented the !
Oss spondent in the local court with Gi
son & Daley.
q The respondent claims that no e
set lrent of chance entered into the
by canization of the club. Any custom
Ken Who accepts the contract has the pr
the ilege of using his or her influence
18th EXAMPLE to help the furniture compa
in its business. They are not obIig
to do so, but if hey do the compen
ton for such effort to take the TO
of rebate on the price of the GOO
-or- which the customer has agreed to p
chase and the defendant is made
sole Judge of how much or how lit
the such rebate shall be or if there sh
900 be such rebate.
the eve point out that every select
;avs for reward or bonus recommended
by the United Furniture Co. by this