terprise.-Cross v. People, 18 Colo. 321, 36 Am. St. Rep. 392, 32 Pac. 821.

6. "The scheme in question has all the attributes and elements of a lottery. It is a distribution by lot of a small number of prizes among a great number of persons." -State V. Pinebock, 2 Mill (S. C.) 128; Taylor v. Smetten, L. R. 11 Q. B. D. 207.

7. Lottery-Drawing a prize, in common parlance, is ascertainment by chance or otherwise who is entitled to particular result or particular thing, by means of some prearranged mode of ascertaining result; as soon as number which entitles ticket-holder to money or article is drawn from wheel or otherwise ascertained, prize is said to be drawn.-People v. Kent, 6 Cal. 89, 91. See Collins v. Lean, 68 Cal. 284, 9 Pac. 173.

and

will

not be overthrown because in some supposititious case person might be charged with its violation who came within letter, if not within spirit, of enactment.Ex parte McClain, 134 Cal. 110, 112, 86 Am. St. Rep. 243, 54 L. R. A. 779, 66 Pac. 69.

10. Municipality — Power to legislate against lotteries - Police power. -Municipality may pass ordinance, in reasonable exercise of its police powers, in furtherance of avowed general policy of national and state where government, and the state, while declaring it to be penal offense to sell lottery ticket, has not made purchaser equally culpable, an ordinance making it unlawful for any person to have in his possession any lottery ticket, and providing for fine and punishment for violation of its terms, is clearly matter of police regulation, and is valid.-Ex parte McClain, 134 Cal. 110, 112, 86 Am. St. Rep. 243, 54 L. R. A. 779, 66 Pac. 69.

11. Tickets-Possession of, as offense.— Where state law makes only seller culpable, it is within power and province of municipality, in its endeavor to eradicate lottery evil, to hold purchaser or possessor of lottery tickets also culpable.-Ex parte McClain, 134 Cal. 110, 13, 86 Am. St. Rep. 243, 54 L. R. A. 779, 66 Pac. 69.

See, post, § 320, note par. 1; § 321, note par. 1.

12. Trading-stamp device-Having no element of chance, and nothing in nature of game, is not lottery.-Ex parte McKenna, 126 Cal. 429, 431, 58 Pac. 916. See Ex parte Drexel, 147 Cal. 763, 773, 82 Pac. 429; Ex parte West, 147 Cal. 774, 82 Pac. 434; Commonwealth v. Sisson, 178 Mass. 578, 60 N. E.

385.

13. Same-Prohibitory tax on void.-Ordinance declaring business of selling

trading-stamps, redeemable in money, merchandise, or other things, passed as amendment to general license ordinance, exacting from every person issuing such tradingstamps-no matter how insignificant his monthly sales-a tax of eight dollars, the amount required of merchants doing very largest business without use of such stamps, evidently designed to be prohibitory, is void, because discriminating, oppressive, and unreasonable.-Ex parte McKenna, 126 Cal. 429, 433, 58 Pac. 916.

14. Ordinance designed to be prohibitory of use of trading-stamps is not ordinance to prohibit a moral practice or to regulate hazardous or offensive business, or conduct of lawful game, or public exhibition.-Ex parte McKenna, 126 Cal. 429, 432, 58 Pac. 916.

17.

Austrian government bonds held lotteries.-Ballock v. State, 73 Md. 1, 25 Am. St. Rep. 559, 8 L. R. A. 671, 20 Atl. 184; Governors, etc., v. American Art Union, 7 N. Y. 228, 239 (very full); United States v. Wallis, 58 Fed. 942.

As to foreign government bonds, generally, see par. 27, this note.

See pars. 21, 23, 28, 30, this note.

23.

Coupons in packages of tea or other packages of merchandise entitling holder to some article or thing of value as a prize. -Taylor v. Smetten, L. R. 11 Q. B. Div. 207.

24. Designating with pointer scheme.State v. Lumsden, 89 N. C. 572.

See pars. 48, 49, this note.

25. Determining by chance or lot whether government bond was entitled to larger sum than the principal, interest, and premium, which holder was sure to get in any event, can not be held to have converted bonds into lottery tickets, and imparted to loan which was made thereon the character, object, and accompaniment of a mere lottery scheme.-Ex parte Shobert, 70 Cal. 632, 634, 59 Am. Rep. 432, 11 Pac. 786. See Ballock v. State, 73 Md. 1, 7, 25 Am. St. Rep. 559, 564, 8 L. R. A. 671, 20 Atl. 184; Horner v. United States, 147 U. S. 449, 466, 37 L. ed. 237, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 49; United States v. Wallis, 58 Fed. 942.

26. Drawing lots is.-Fleming v. Bills, 3 Ore. 286, 289.

27. Foreign-government bond providing that holder shall be entitled to repayment of capital invested therein, and interest thereon at rate of three per cent, payable annually, and further providing, in effect, that two hundred of the bonds or obligations shall become due and payable at end of first year, two hundred and six at end of second year, and two hundred and twelve at end of third year, etc., all of them payable in sixty-six years, is not such an instrument as is described as a "ticket. chance, share, or interest in, or depending upon the event of any lottery," the sale of which is prohibited under this section and under section 319, ante.-Ex parte Shobert, 70 Cal. 632, 634, 59 Am. Rep. 432, 11 Pac. 786. See Kohn v. Koehler, 96 N. Y. 362, 48 Am. Rep. 628.

As to Austrian government bonds, see par. 17, this note.

28.

"Gift-enterprises” are lotteries.—Ill. Dunn v. People, 40 I11. 465, N. H. State v. Clarke, 33 N. H. 329. N. J. State v. Shortz 32 N. J. L. (3 Vr.) 398. Mass. Commonwealth v. Thatcher, 97 Mass. 583. Tenn. Bell v. State, 37 Tenn. (5 Sneed) 505. Va. Commonwealth v. Chubb, 5 Rand. 715. Fed. United States v. Olney, 1 Abb. U. S. 275, Deady 461, 27 Fed. Cas. 233.

29. Gift concert, even in aid of a benevolent association.-Ex parte Blanchard, 9 Nev. 101.

30. Gift sale distribution.-Dunn v. People, 40 Ill. 465.

31. Gift sale of books at prices above their market value, entitling purchasers to prizes indicated by figures in the book, corresponding to the number of a particular prize, the numbers in the book purchased and the character of the prize being alike unknown to the purchaser.-State v. Clarke, 33 N. H. 329.

32. Guessing contest not a lottery.-Horner v. United States, 147 U. S. 449, 37 L. ed. 237, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 409.

33. Guessing contest in which purchasers of goods at a store, in excess of fifty cents, are entitled to a chance to secure a gold watch, is a lottery.-Hudelson v. State, 94 Ind. 426, 48 Am. Rep. 171. See Buckalew v. State, 62 Ala. 334, 34 Am. Rep. 22. 34. “Keno" game not a lottery.-Esleva v. State, 44 Ala. 406.

See, post, § 330, note par. 19.

35. Instalment or coupon contract, when not a lottery.-Lottery does not consist in contract providing that in consideration of payment by holder of two dollars monthly for one hundred and twenty-five consecutive months, the defendant agreed to pay holder four dollars in the manner provided in the contract, according to coupons, the provisions of which are not clear without extrinsic evidence to explain such provisions, and where such evidence was not given. McDonald v. Pacific Debenture Co., 146 Cal. 667, 670, 80 Pac. 1090.

36. Land sale-Scheme for the sale of town lots, setting aside certain lots to be sold, and others to be distributed among the purchasers, whereby the first purchasers have a chance to "draw" a prize lot, and thereby secure two lots for one consideration.-United States v. Olney, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 275, Deady 461, 27 Fed. Cas. 233. See Yellowstone Kit v. State, 88 Ala. 196, 16 Am. St. Rep. 38, 7 L. R. A. 599, 7 So. 388; Hudelson v. State, 94 Ind. 429; State v. Moren, 48 Minn. 559, 51 N. W. 618; State v. Mumford, 73 Mo. 651; Wooden v. Shotwell, 23 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 465; Ridgeway v. Underwood, 4 Wash. (D. C.) C. C. 129, 20 Fed. Cas. 760. 37. Machine When operated as here manifestly designed to operate, held to be a lottery.In re Rogers, 160 Cal. 766, sub nom. In re Miller (in behalf of Rogers), 118 Pac. 242.

38. Newspaper subscription-When a lottery. Newspaper subscriber receiving ticket entitling him to participate in a drawing of prizes without extra charge over and above the ordinary subscription price to paper.-Davenport v. City of Ottawa, 54 Kan. 711, 45 Am. St. Rep. 303, 39 Pac. 708. See State v. Kansas Mercantile Assoc., 45 Kan. 351, 23 Am. St. Rep. 727, 25 Pac. 984; State v. Mumford, 73 Mo. 647, 39 Am. Rep. 532; Wilkinson v. Gill, 74 N. Y. 63, 30 Am. Rep. 264.

39. Nickel-in-the-slot machine, as to whether lottery or gambling, see Ala. Reeves v. State, 105 Ala. 129, 17 So. 104. Ind. Hudelson v. State, 94 Ind. 426, 48 Am. Rep. 471. Kan. Davenport v. City of Ottawa, 54 Kan. 171, 45 Am. St. Rep. 303, 39 Pac. 708. Me. State v. Willis, 78 Me. 70, 2 Atl. 848. Mass. Commonwealth v. Wright, 137 Mass. 250, 50 Am. Rep. 306. Mich. People v. Hess, 85 Mich. 148, 48 N. W. 181. N. J. State v. Lovell, 39 N. J. L. (10 Vr.) 458. Fed. United States v. Wallis, 58 Fed. 942.

40. Whether lotteries or not, slotmachines are gambling devices, and probably banking games, and can not be protected by supervisorial licenses.-Glennon v. Britton, 155 Ill. 232, 40 N. E. 594; Bobel v. People, 173 Ill. 19, 64 Am. St. Rep. 64, 50 N. E. 322; Reliance Nov. Co. v. Dworzek, 80 Fed. 902.

41. Panorama scheme is a lottery, when. -State v. Shortz, 32 N. J. L. (3 Vr.) 398, 401.

42. Playing policy-When gambling or lottery. As to whether lottery or gambling. -State v. Kansas M. Assoc., 45 Kan. 351, 23 Am. St. Rep. 727, 11 L. R. A. 430, 25 Pac. 984; People v. Elliott, 74 Mich. 264, 16 Am. St. Rep. 640, 3 L. R. A. 403, 41 N. W. 916; Grover v. Morris, 73 N. Y. 473; Wilkinson v. Gill, 74 N. Y. 63, 30 Am. Rep. 264.

43. Pools on horse-races.-As to whether lottery.-Ex parte Tuttle, 91 Cal. 589, 27 Pac. 933; Stearns v. State, 81 Md. 341, 32 Atl. 282; People v. Reilly, 50 Mich. 384, 45 Am. Rep. 47, 15 N. W. 520; State v. Lovell, 39 N. J. L. (10 Vr.) 461.

44. "Prize packages" of candy, tea, coffee, etc., in boxes, etc., each box said to contain a prize of jewelry or money, the

purchaser having the privilege of selecting his box, in ignorance of its contents, is a lottery. State v. Boneil, 42 La. Ann. 1110, 21 Am. St. Rep. 413, 8 So. 298; Long v. State, 73 Md. 527, 25 Am. St. Rep. 606, 12 L. R. A. 89, 21 Atl. 683; Hull v. Ruggles, 56 N. Y. 424; Eubanks V. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 490; Holoman v. State, 2 Tex. Ct. App. 610, 28 Am. Rep. 439.

45. This is true, whether there are any blanks or boxes which do not contain either money or jewelry.-Wooden v. Shotwell, 23 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 465.

46. Sale of envelopes-Some of which contain tickets entitling purchaser to valuable property at a nominal price.-Dunn v. People, 40 Ill. 465.

47. Trading-stamp device not a lottery.See par. 12, this note.

48. Wheel of fortune is.-Cavanaugh v. State, 43 Ala. 397; Buckalew v. State, 62 Ala 334, 34 Am. Rep. 22; Reeves v. State, 105 Ala. 120, 17 So. 104.

49. Compare: People v. Carroll, 80 Cal. 153, 156, 22 Pac. 129 (holding a wheel of fortune a banking game).

PUNISHMENT FOR DRAWING LOTTERY.

1. Conviction.

2. Machine as a lottery.

3. Ordinance defining offense of having lottery tickets in possession.

1. Conviction under a complaint showing the commission of an offense hereunder not precluded by fact that same was drawn ostensibly to cover the offense defined in section 330a, Penal Code.-In re Rogers, 160 Cal. 766, sub nom. In re Miller (in behalf of Rogers), 118 Pac. 242.

2. Machine as a lottery.-Whoever contrives, prepares, or sets up, the machine described held to be guilty of a misdemeanor. -In re Rogers, 160 Cal. 766, sub nom. In re Miller (in behalf of Rogers), 118 Pac. 242.

3. Ordinance defining offense of having lottery tickets in possession, and providing that the offense shall be punishable "by fine of not less than two hundred and fifty

dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment of not less than three months nor more than six months, or Ly both such fine and imprisonment," where it is possible, under the state law, that, upon conviction of offenses described in this section and in post, section 326, only a nominal fine may be imposed upon offenders, while for the comparatively trifling offense of having a lottery ticket in possession, under such ordinance, the discretion to impose a fine of not less than two hundred and fifty dollars is taken away, and fine may be double that which can be imposed for more serious offenses named in general law: Held, that such ordinance is not in harmony with general laws of the state. and is unreasonable and void.-Ex parte Solomon, 91 Cal. 440, 441, 27 Pac. 757. See In re Ah You, 88 Cal. 99, 102, 103, 22 Am. St. Rep. 280, 11 L. R. A. 408, 25 Pac. 974; In re Ridenbaugh, 5 Idaho 371, 49 Pac. 12. See, ante, § 319, note par. 11; post, § 321, note par. 1.

P. C.-27

417