Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1916-04-07
LOTTERY, STATE SAYS
Defense Claims Awards Were in
Discretion of Firm
Prosecution Thinks Court Should Be as
Credulous as 'Dupes' in Sizing Up
Furniture Scheme.


Briefs have been filed in the mum.
cipal court in the case of the state
against M. Hirsch, an employee of the
united Furniture company of Boston
who was tried last week on charge
of aiding In the conduct of q lottery.
Judge Frank f. Barber expects to give
his decision in a few days
The brief Of the state maintains that
the defendant or some other employe
of the company told every witness for
the state, who was a member of the
Brattleboro furniture club organized by
representatives of the company, "that
there was 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
lucky person would get u 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 drawing or
distribution Of prizes by chance as de-
scrlbed III the uncontradicted evidence
of the declarations of the respondent
did actually take place. IF it did, then
the respondent is guilty of aiding in
lottery by selling the chances inI
Brattleboro. 1t is not denied by the
respondent S evidence that these dec
larations were actually made to the
states witnesses. -
Outlining the claim of the defense
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 were concerned. 1T
certainly would be an astounding state
of facts if this respondent and his CO.
conspirators after getting their vic
tins to 60 into this scheme by decla-
rations that it was lottery, should GO
unwhlpped of justice on q defense that
the scheme was one of obtaining mon.
ey 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 ii it was legitimate
selling enterprise instead lof a lottery.
The bait of the lottery was held out by
the respondent and his co-conspirators
to inveiglc the unsuspecting with graf
flying results to- the guilty parties.
"This court should now give the
statements and declarations (which the
respondent and his confedeEates made
to their victims, face vaItie and find
that the scheme was lottery and not
permit them TO juggle it into another
sort of misdemeanor not described in
the complaint as a defense.
at would not seem amiss for the
court to be at least as credulous as the
dupes of the respondent in reaching Il
conclusion as to what the scheme really
was.
"But, if the selection had been made
us the manager testified, the scheme
would have still been a lottery AS l.
matter of fact no services were per.
formed which would amount to any
consideration for the prizes The
manager had no knowledge or acguaint
ance with the people holding the
chances. If he took list of $50 of
their names and selected one arbitra.
rily, it would be as much of a lottery
as if he drew the name out of hat.
The selected participant was getting
something for practically nothing and
by method of chance in which the
participant had nothing to say, over
which he had no control, and in which
a. he eould' do nothing to influence the
selection The judgment in this case
should be guilty"
! The respondent s brief is from the
Office of Hale & Dickerman of Boston
signed by that law firm and James p.
Richardson, who represented the re.
spondent in the 10 al court with Glib.
son & Daley.
The respondent claims that no Gle.
ment of chance entered into the OIL
ganization of the club. Any customer
who accepts the contract has the PRIV
ilege of using his or her influence or
example to help the furniture company
i'll its business. They are not obliged
to do so, but if hey do the compensa-
tion for such effort to take the form
of rebate on the price of the goods
which the customer has agreed to pur-
chase and the defendant is made the
sole judge of how much or how little
such rebate shall be or if there shall
be such rebate.
"We point out that every selection
for reward or bonus recommended to
the United Furniture Co. by this de-
PENDANT has been the result of actual
services rendered to the company by
the nnrSOn so chosen -
Summed up the respondent makes the
following claims:
First-That the business of the
United Furniture Co. as set forth in
its contract and as carried out by the
selection of persons from time to time
to receive the premiums in the judg
ment and discretion of the company, as
to what service they may have render
ed, is not violation of the statute ana
does not constitute a lottery.
Second-That the evidence in this
case fails to show that any lottery has
been conducted by any person or per
sons.
Third-That this defendant cannot
be found guilty of aiding or assisting
in the promotion of any lottery be
cause the evidence fails to show any