Thomas v. People
Citations
- 59 Ill. 160
Syllabus
<p>1. Lottery—what constitutes. In a prosecution for the alleged sale of a lottery ticket, it appeared the ticket was as follows:</p> <p>“ Chicago Industrial College and Home Festival.</p> <p>“This ticket is a receipt for $5, in payment for and delivery of a copy of a steel plate engraving, and admission to our concerts and lectures, for which it is sold.</p> <p>“ By order of the officers,</p> <p>Thomas & Co., General Agents.”</p> <p>Besides the ticket, a steel plate engraving was delivered to the purchaser, and also a bill, entitled, “ Grand National Festival, to erect in the city of Chicago an Industrial College and Home for Unfortunate Females,” and it was proposed in the bill to give a series of musical receptions, and a course of lectures, in Chicago, at the close of which, and after the sale of 200,000 copies of steel plate engravings, to distribute to the purchasers of engravings, “in a just and legal manner,” $200,000, in presents, amounting in number to 3012. Twenty-eight hundred of this number were to be the newspapers of Chicago, at a price from $2 to $12 each. The remaining 212 were estimated at $35,000 to $50,000. It was held, this was “a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance,” and constituted a lottery, within the meaning of the statute.</p> <p>2. The fact that no plan of distribution had been determined upon at the time of the sale of the ticket, would not relieve the scheme of its character as a lottery, when it was apparent that some of the purchasers of tickets would Tail to receive a prize. The promise that the distribution should be in “a just and legal manner,” was evasive.</p> <p>3. And even if the ticket to the concerts and lectures, and an engraving, were intrinsically worth the price paid for the ticket, the scheme would still be a lottery.</p> <p>4. Evidence in such case—to prove the intent. It was proper, in such case, to admit in evidence, on behalf of the prosecution, not only the ticket sold, but the bill or advertisement deli
Judges: Thornton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. MumfordSupreme Court of Missouri· 1881-04-15· cited 21×
- Joseph Taylor Coal Co. v. DawesIllinois Supreme Court· 1906-02-21· cited 20×
- G. A. Carney, Ltd. v. BrzeczekAppellate Court of Illinois· 1983-08-16· cited 12×
- Towne v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1900-05-10· cited 11×
- United States v. ZeislerU.S. Circuit Court· 1887-03-14· cited 5×
- Elder v. ChapmanAppellate Court of Illinois· 1897-06-14· cited 2×
- People v. ViskniskkiAppellate Court of Illinois· 1910-04-09· cited 2×
- Loveland v. BodeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1919-06-06· cited 2×
- People v. WooleyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1934-06-11
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.