The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1942-12-25

| theatre organization to stop i
from conducting what the stat,
called a lottery.
The majority opinion written b.
Chief Justice Johnson and concurret
lin by Associate Justices Morris ant
Anderson was on the conclusion tina
no consideration was paid by anyon'
for participation in the drawing and i
was therefore not lottery. The plal
in question in this particular cast
was one in which the theatre eacl
Wednesday night gave away a So
defense bond to the holder of a cou
pon with a certain number which was
drawn during the evening within the
theatre The holder, having the cou
pom with the same number would win
the prize providing he was present in
the theatre or close enough outside
to hear the number called. The re
quirements fixed by the theatre We're;
Il. The person claiming the award
must present an Identification card
containing the winning number and
the persons name WITHIN ONE MIN
UTE FROM THE TIME THE WIN
MING NUMBER is ANNOUNCED.
(Caps ours).
so. Identification card must be pre-
scented personally by the individual
who claims the award"
The majority of the court in their
hair-splitting decision on whether or
not any consideration was paid by the
participant in the drawing, made
much of the claims Of the theatre cor
poration that the bonds given away
as prizes were not paid for with funds
derived from the, sale of admission
to the theatre but from income from
rentals of property controlled by the
theatre corporation.
Erickson Dssents MA III
Dissenting from the opinion of the
majority of the court, Associate JUS
tice Erickson challenged the conten-
ton that the participants in the bond
drawing had paid no valuable con-
sideration" for participation, contend
ing that the opinion of the majority
restricted the meaning of the words
beyond anything that the legislature
He stated that "had
the legislature intended that scheme
such as this could not be lottery un-
less money or its equivalent was paid
in consideration, it certainly would
not have used the broad and all in
elusive word any in describing the
consideration"
Justice Erickson declared that the
that the participant be
present at the theatre, either inside
as paid guest or outside in the lob
by was sufficient to constitute con
sideration. Discussing further the
of the majority relative to
The fact that the numbered cards are
free to anyone wanting
them, Erickson presents common
sense view of the matter by saying:
The opinion emphasizes that since
may be had by every
one without paying the price of adj
it cannot be lottery and it
Is immaterial that greater number
10 buy (admission) tickets. That
suggests the inquiry which practical
men must make: If no one bought
tickets to the theatre on Bank Nights,
1r if patronage at the theatre were
lot substantially increased, how long
would this scheme last? Viewed in
he most charitable light, this thing
,annot be classed as an innocent ad
scheme merely because some
do not pay the price of
but instead, viewed as a
whole, this scheme, as most courts |
lold, is clumsy attempt to evade |
he lottery statutes by the poorest |
lind of camouflage, and the great |
majority of courts have no difficulty |
n recognizing its true character"
Stating that in none of the states |
re there statutes as plainly prohibit |
i've as in Montana, Justice dickson |
uotes Section 11151, Revised Codes |
which states: Every person who sells, |
ives or in any manner whatever fur
fishes or transfers to or for any other
erson, any ticket, chance, share or
interest or any paper, certificate or
ltrument purporting or understood
D be or to represent any ticket,
nance, share or interest in, or de-
ending upon the event of any lottery
J guilty of a misdemeanor." Thus,
ustice Erickson, declares, those who
ave paid an admission to the theatre
ave paid a valuable consideration,
nd the operator has violated the sec
ion quoted by giving" to other par
icipating a ticket which entities
hem to share in the lottery drawing.
Summing up his dissenting opinion,
ustice Erickson says: I'm conclusion
seems to me that the scheme in
uestion is plainly lottery under
ection 11149, Revised Codes and I'M I