Court Opinion

ID: 9861374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:56:09.995513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:15.954724
License: Public Domain

Snell, J.
I respectfully dissent. I think the premise on which the holding is based is wrong, the factual situation necessary to support the finding is lacking and the result is unsound.
Our constitutional and statutory provisions against lotteries and gambling are strict and enacted for the protection of the *1390public welfare. That is a proper legislative function but the evils against which the laws and our own decisions are aimed are not present here. We are not here engaged in a crusade against evil. There is nothing anymore evil here than there is in sending in the answers to a cross-word puzzle or answering the telephone and giving the correct answer on a radio quiz show. Our problem here is what constitutes a lottery under the statute and not whether a lottery is evil.
The two Mabrey eases cited and relied on by the majority did not involve the same statute as is relied on here. In the Mabrey cases the prosecution was under section 726.1, Code of Iowa. That statute proscribes permitting any person in any house or other place under his (defendant’s) control playing any game for money or other thing. The defendant operated an eating establishment and offered amusement in the form of bingo games played for money. By permitting such play in his place he was within the terms of the statute. There was a game played for a money prize in defendant’s place.
Although under the statute the game might have been found illegal without being a lottery the question of lotteries was discussed.
In, the first Mabrey case it was said that the game was a lottery at least as to those who purchased tickets. In the second Mabrey case it was held: “It did not cease to be a lottery because some were admitted to' play without paying for the privilege, so long as others paid for their chances. Presence of the nonpaying participants did not change the status of those who paid. If it was a lottery as to some who played the game it was nonetheless a lottery.” 245 Iowa 428, 435, 60 N.W.2d 889, 893.
In the case at bar we have a different statute and a different factual situation. The statute now involved is section 726.8 quoted by the majority. As said by the majority to constitute a lottery three elements must be present. (1) Chance. (2) A prize. (3) Consideration. Here we have a chance and a prize but I find no consideration.
The purpose of the sponsor was to increase floor traffic. That is the purpose of any advertising program, offer of prizes *1391given away or special discounts on certain items. The fact that it was successful proves nothing except that it was an attractive scheme. At the Worlds Fair a prize was given the one millionth person who bought a ticket. I do not think all such things should be enjoined under the guise that they are lotteries.
Trading stamps are given to encourage people to trade at a particular store. With them there is no element of chance but certainly a consideration lacking here.
In the case at bar it was not necessary for a person to do anything except pick up a card at the cheek stand or the courtesy counter. The cards were free. I do not think accepting one from the cashier or picking one up from the courtesy counter entailed such an arduous effort as to be considered the rendering or paying a consideration.
Undoubtedly increased floor traffic tends to increase business but there is no suggestion that anyone bought any gasoline, groceries or drugstore products that were unneeded or that would not have been purchased in any event.
The question is not what the stores paid plaintiff for the program or what was paid the television station for the telecast. The question is the consideration, if any, paid by the person picking up a card. He pays nothing and does nothing except accept what is given free.
It is not for us to condemn a scheme because it is successful as an advertising gimmick nor even because it may appeal to prospective customers as a chance to get something for nothing.
The only question before us is one of consideration on the part of one who receives or picks up a card. I think it unsound to say there was consideration here.
I would reverse.
ThorNTON, Moore and Stuart, JJ., join in this dissent.