the total aurnagreed upon at the startof the plan is disbursedto the registrants.
Vuring the conversationby the+ster of Cermoniesproceed- ing every drawingit is clearlyexplainedto his listeners that et no time is it necessaryto bdy anythingin the store in order to participatein this give away p-tion plan."
While no Texas Statuteattemptsto define a lottery,and Legislatures of other jurisdictions generallymake no attemptto definea Lottery,the text materialand case law of the overwhelmingmajority,includingour own jurisdiction, are uniform in settingforth the necessaryelementsof a lottery,namely: (1) A prize or prizes,(2) the award or distributionof . .
Mr. A. W. Davis, Page 3 (WW-1030)
the prize or prizes by chanceand, (3) the paymenteitherdirectlyor in- directlyby the participantsof a consideration for the right or privilege of participating.Cole vs. State, 133 Tex. Crim. 548, 112 S.W.2d725 (19381; City of Wink vs. GriffithAmusementCo., I.29Tex: 40, 100 S.W.2d 695 (1936); Smith vs. State, 136 Tex. Grim. 611, 127 S.W.2d 297 (1939); Price vs. State, 242 S.W.2dli33(Tex. Crim. 1951); F.C.C. vs. American BroadcastingCO., 347 US 284, (1954);34 Am. Jur. 647 lotteries,Sec. 3.
There can be no doubt that the first two elements,"prize"and "chance",exist in the procedurefor the operationsubmitted,therefore, your inquirypertainsto whetheror not the third element,"consideration", is present. In reachinga conclusion,there are at least two possibleap- proaches: (a) The considerationrequiredto be paid x be any consideration that would supporta simple contract,or
(b) The consideration requiredto be paid must be a valuableconsideration.
While the cases cited above do not describethe necessaryconsider- ation,they do seem to negativethe posiibilitythat any consideration which would support.a simple contractis sufficientto supplythis third and final element. On the contrary,the leadingcase in Texas of Brice vs. State, supra, standsfor the propositionthat,therequisiteconsideration must be valuable,citingwith approval,GriffithAmusementCo. vs. Morgan, 95 S.W.2d '884(civ.App. 1936). In the Brice case the defendantwas chargedby complaint and informationwith violations of Article654 E.C., the allegedviolationbeing the merchant'sinvitationto the generaipublicto'comsinto his store and registerfor a prize to be given away. Anyone could registeronce each day for a three day period and thus become eligiblefor the drawingby going to the store and writinghis name, address,and telephonenumber on a registration card. One could not be a prize winnerwithout so registeringat the store;no registrantwas requiredto buy anythingor be at the store at the time of the drawing. Concedingthat the elementsof prize and chancewere shown by the facts above the court held:
"Underthe authoritiesmentioned,we must conclude that in the absenceof any characterof favoritism shown to customers,the lotterystatute,Art. 654,~.~., is not violatedunder a plan wherebya merchantawards a prize or prizesby chanceto a registrantwithoutre- quiringany~registrant to be a customeror to purchase merchandiseor to do other than to registerwithout chargeat the store,thoughthe donor may receivea benefit from the drawingin the way of advertising." Mr. A. W. Davis, Page 4 (WW-1030)
The Austin Court of Civil Appeals in the case of GriffithAmusement Co., vs. Morgan, supra, held:
"As above statedit is essentialto a lottery that somethingof value must:be paid for the chance to win the prize. The elementof venture,the chance to lose or win somethingof value is essential...
"The fact that the holderof the drawingexpects therebyto receive,or in