Court Opinion

ID: 9808505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:40:01.990141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:06.798873
License: Public Domain

CiARK,’ C. J.,
dissenting: The scheme presented by this appeal is almost identical with the well known method heretofore adopted by many newspapers of the State in order to increase their circulation, and without objection up to this time from any source. It would seem that the plan is neither a lottery nor a gift enterprise. The mere fact that merchandise is to be given away, or disposed of upon certain conditions, does not make it either a lottery or a gift enterprise within the purview of the statute. The courts have laid down the rule that to make a lottery there must be an element of chance, in winning a greater prize or of winning nothing and losing the purchase price of the chance. Also, that there must be a consideration paid for the chance to participate in the distribution of the prizes. S. v. Lumsden, 89 N. C., 572; Winston v. Beeson, 135 N. C., 271.
Here there is no element of chance, nor is there any fee charged for participating in the contest. The prizes are awarded according to the number of votes cast. ' There is no drawing, no throwing of lots, nor any distribution of prizes, “which human reason, foresight, sagacity, or design cannot enable any one to know or determine until same has been accomplished.” People v. Elliott, 2 L. R. A., 403. The awards are to be made solely by the number of votes cast for the several contestants. The one who works hardest and sends the largest volume of business to the defendant’s store will certainly win the prize. It is merely a question of the hardest work, the exercise of the greatest influence, and the possession of the largest-degree of skill.
When the contest is determined by skill, energy, and judgment there is no lottery, even though an entrance fee is charged, the contestants. 25 Cyc., 1635; 19 A. and E., 589. This distribution is dependent entirely on effort and judgment. Chance is completely eliminated and no consideration is charged either directly or indirectly to any one. The manner of distributing the prizes to the more popular contestants is like a public election, and no more a lottery than such elections, whose results, often uncertain, are not lotteries in the legal sense of that word. If this is a lottery, then every election is a lottery wherever there are two or more candidates.
In S. v. Lipkin, 169 N. C., 265, the proposition was entirely different from this. In that ease there was an element of chance, the award being thereby determined and a consideration had to be paid.
*58It is also urged that this is a gift enterprise denounced by the statute. A gift enterprise is defined by the decisions as a scheme for the division of certain articles of property determined by chance among those who take shares in the scheme. Winston v. Beeson, supra. There is nothing in this scheme that savors of a gift enterprise. The fact that coupons, pamphlets, and the like are used for the purpose of the campaign does not conclusively establish that this is a lottery or a gift enterprise. It is a proposition for the extension of the business of the plaintiff by the methods proposed which do not constitute either a gift enterprise or a lottery, for the reason already stated, that there is no element of chance and that no consideration is paid for the opportunity to participate in the distribution of the prizes. The result is obtained simply by an election, the party getting the most votes receiving the prizes according to the schedule set out. The consideration to the iilaintiff, as in the almost identical method used in the familiar newspaper contests, is the enlargement of' its business by the advertisement obtained and the interest aroused by the election contest. It is simply the application of election methods to business. There is no chance, and no gift enterprise, unless the ordinary election contest for office can come under one of those heads.