The one in control of the place is the one responsible, so a lessor having control,29 or club manager30 may be guilty.

§ 724. Permitting minors to gamble.—Some statutes prohibit persons who keep billiard, pool or gaming tables, from allowing minors to play on them or resort to the place where such gaming takes place.31 Some statutes prohibit the allowing of minors to bet in such places;32 others prohibit the allowing of minors to resort there without the consent of parents or guardians.33 Some authorities hold lack of knowledge of the minor's age is a defense.34 Others hold the contrary.3 If the statute punishes the congregation of minors, it must appear that two or more minors were together at the place. 36

35

29 Diebel v. State, 68 Miss. 725, 9 So. 354; Kimbrough v. State, 25 Tex. App. 397, 8 S. W. 476.

30 Jacobi v. State, 59 Ala. 71. 31 Snow v. State, 50 Ark. 557, 9 S. W. 306; Bird v. State, 104 Ind. 384. 3 N. E. 827; State v. Proasco, 62 Iowa 400, 17 N. W. 607. 32 Ready v. State, 62 Ind. 1; Green v. Commonwealth, 5 Bush (Ky.) 327.

33 Kiley v. State, 120 Ind. 63, 22 N. E. 99; Commonwealth v. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6.

34 Stern v. State, 53 Ga. 229, 21 Am. Rep. 266.

35 State v. Probasco, 62 Iowa 400, 17 N. W. 607; Commonwealth v. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6.

36 Powell v. State, 62 Ind. 531.

§ 726. Definition.-The conducting of lotteries or selling lottery tickets is indictable under varying statutes in many states. It is not a common-law offense unless a nuisance.1 A lottery is defined as a scheme for distributing property by lot or chance, among persons who have paid to participate in such scheme.2

It is a species of gaming, and the reason for punishing the offense. is the same, since lotteries create an inordinate desire for gain with small expenditure, and tend to arouse passions, create mendicancy and idleness. The sale of tickets in a lottery carried on without the state is indictable.5

§ 727. What schemes punishable.-A private arrangement between individuals to dispose of property by lot, does not fall within the statutory prohibition, which is aimed at public lotteries, since the latter are open to the public and corrupt an appreciable portion thereof. But any scheme open to all who choose to buy tickets is punishable." Wharton says, "A gift 'enterprise' or a 'raffle,' in which the public is invited to take shares in the distribution of prizes by chance, is a lottery, no matter how artfully the object may be disguised." Many schemes in which purchasers of certain kinds of goods are given tickets with the chance to secure something more valuable by lot, have been considered lotteries and are indictable.9

Even if the purpose of the lottery is to raise funds for charity, this is immaterial, if the scheme itself is of the character prohibited.10

Nor does it matter that every purchaser receives something, if there are larger prizes to be distributed by chance.11

6 Yellow-Stone Kit v. State, 88 Ala. 196, 7 So. 338, 7 L. R. A. 599, 16 Am. St. 38; Commonwealth v. Manderfield, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 457; Whart. Crim. L. (11th ed.) § 1776.

7 Buckalew v. State, 62 Ala. 334, 34 Am. Rep. 22; Cross v. People, 18 Colo. 321, 32 Pac. 821, 36 Am. St. 292; Long v. State, 74 Md. 565, 22 Atl. 4, 12 L. R. A. 425, 28 Am. St. 268; State v. Clarke, 33 N. H. 329, 66 Am. Dec. 723; Kohn v. Koehler, 96 N. Y. 362, 48 Am. Rep. 628.

8 Whart. Crim. L. (11th ed.) § 1776. See also Horner v. United States, 147 U. S. 449, 37 L. ed. 237; State v. Stripling, 113 Ala. 120, 21 So. 409, 36 L. R. A. 81; Meyer v. State, 112 Ga. 20, 37 S. E. 96, 51 L. R. A. 496, 81 Am. St. 17; Hudelson v. State, 94 Ind. 426, 48 Am.

Rep. 171; State v. Boneil, 42 La. Ann. 1110, 8 So. 298, 10 L. R. A. 60, 21 Am. St. 413; State v. Willis, 78 Maine 70, 2 Atl. 848, 6 Am. Cr. 284; Commonwealth v. Thacher, 97 Mass. 583, 93 Am. Dec. 125; People v. Elliott, 74 Mich. 264, 41 N. W. 916, 3 L. R. A. 403, 16 Am. St. 640; State v. Shorts, 32 N. J. L. 398, 90 Am. Dec. 668; People v. Noelke, 94 N. Y. 137, 1 N. Y. Cr. 495, 46 Am. Rep. 128.

9 United States v. Olney, Fed. Cas. No. 15918, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 275, Deady 461; Dunn v. People, 40 Ill. 465; State v. Mumford, 73 Mo. 647, 39 Am. Rep. 532.

10 Thomas v. People, 59 Ill. 160. 11 Den v. Shotwell, 23 N. J. L. 465; Seidenbender v. Charles, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 151, 8 Am. Dec. 682.

Among schemes which have been held within the statutory ban are the following: the sale of keys, one of which opens a box containing a prize,12 the sale of tickets to an entertainment where those who attend share in a distribution of prizes by lot,13 trade premiums or prizes given by lot,11 the sale of prize candy packages for more than their value, some of them containing tickets entitling the holder to a piece of silverware,15 an agreement by which persons pay a dollar a week each into a common fund and a suit of clothes was purchased each week for one, determined by lot, until all were supplied,16 the giving of a prize to all purchasers of goods who guess the correct number of beans in a jar, 17 or to the one who correctly guesses the popular vote for president in a state,18 baseball pools, 19 the sale of books for more than their value, the purchaser to be entitled to gifts, if there was a correspondence between certain numbers placed on the books, and numbers on the prize packages,20 the sale of envelopes, some of which contained tickets whereby the holder could buy valuable property for a small price,21 a sale of public bonds, at which a bonus is given to certain purchasers, depending on the turn of a wheel of fortune,22 or the sale of

12 Davenport v. Ottawa, 54 Kans. 711, 39 Pac. 708, 45 Am. St. 303.

13 Thomas v. People, 59 Ill. 160; State v. Overton, 16 Nev. 136; State v. Shorts, 32 N. J. L. 398, 90 Am. Dec. 668.

14 Meyer v. State, 112 Ga. 20, 37 S. E. 96, 51 L. R. A. 496, 81 Am. St. 17.

15 Hull v. Ruggles, 56 N. Y. 424. 16 State v. Moren, 48 Minn. 555, 51 N. W. 618; Grant v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 403, 112 S. W. 1068, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 876, 16 Ann. Cas. 844. See also People v. McPhee, 139 Mich. 687, 103 N. W. 174, 69

L. R. A. 505, 5 Ann. Cas. 835.

17 Hudelson v. State, 94 Ind. 426, 48 Am. Rep. 171.

18 Waite v. Press Pub. Assn., 155 Fed. 58, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 609, 12 Ann. Cas. 319.

19 State v. Sedgwick, 25 Del. 453, 81 Atl. 472.

20 State v. Clarke, 33 N. H. 329, 66 Am. Dec. 723.

21 Dunn v. People, 40 Ill. 465; State v. Lumsden, 89 N. Car. 572.

22 Horner v. United States, 147 U. S. 449, 37 L. ed. 237; Ballock v. State, 73 Md. 1, 20 Atl. 184, 8 L. R. A. 671, 25 Am. St. 559.

lots of land of different values, the purchasers getting the more valuable ones being selected by lot.28

The essential elements of a lottery are said to be (1) consideration, (2) prize, (3) chance.24

§ 728. What is not lottery.-Gratuitous distribution of cards as advertisement, entitling holder to a chance on a piano, is not a lottery,25 nor are gifts to persons receiving the most votes in a "popularity" contest,20 nor the giving of trading stamps to a customer by a retail merchant.27

28 Whitley v. McConnell, 133 Ga. 738, 66 S. E. 933, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 287.

24 Burks v. Harriss, 91 Ark. 205, 120 S. W. 979, 18 Ann. Cas. 566; Equitable Loan &c. Co. v. Waring, 117 Ga. 599, 44 S. E. 320, 62 L. R. A. 93, 97 Am. St. 177.

25 Cross v. People, 18 Colo. 321, 32 Pac. 821, 36 Am. St. 292.

26 Commonwealth V. Jenkins, 159 Ky. 80, 166 S. W. 794, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 170; Quatsoe v. Eggleston, 42 Ore. 315, 71 Pac. 66.

27 State v. Caspare, 115 Md. 7, 80 Atl. 606.