Court Opinion

ID: 9864754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:09:34.958084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:32.057907
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hilliard
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in that portion of the opinion which is to the effect that since the title to the act involved comprehends lotteries, but not gifts, only as to lotteries may there be prosecutions; but in so far as there is affirmance of the judgment, I am in disagreement. It is clear, *338as my study of the record convinces, that no money, or value otherwise, was paid or given, or received, for the cards which defendants issued. On their face, the cards emphasized that they were for advertising purposes. The advertising method employed by defendants perhaps is unique, but in principle it does not differ from advertising generally. I think the case is controlled by Cross v. People, 18 Colo. 321, 32 Pac. 821, and that an order for reversal, with instructions to dismiss, should be entered.