State v. . Lumsden

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Lumsden

89 N.C. 572

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 5, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 89 N.C. 572 (State v. . Lumsden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Lumsden, 89 N.C. 572 (N.C. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Merrimon, J.

A lottery, within the meaning of the statute of this state forbidding lotteries (Bat. Rev., ch. 32, §69), is a scheme, devise or game of hazard, wheréby for a smaller sum of money, or other thing of value, the person dealing therein •by chance or hazard, or contingency, may or may not get money or other thing of value, of greater or less value, or in some cases no value at all, from the owners or managers of such lottery. 2 Bish. Cr. L., §§945, 946, and notes.

It appears from the facts found in the special verdict in the case before us, that the defendants carried on the business whereby they would sell to their customers small boxes of candy of trifling value. This was the consideration for the chance or opportunity to designate, with a cue or slender stick, one of a number of pictures of uniform size set in a line on the wall across the counter, behind some of which were small sums of money, various in amount, and behind others of them were cards on which was the letter “ Q.” If the customer happened to designate a picture with money behind it, he got the money; if he happened to designate a picture with a card with the letter “C” on it behind it, he became entitled to recover another box *574 of candy similar to tiie one be bad purchased. The customer did not know which of the pictures on the line the money was behind, nor the amount, nor did he know which of them the card with the letter “C” on it was behind, until he had exercised his right to designate one of the pictures at random. It was purely hazard; whether he got money was contingent; whether he got a larger or smaller sum was contingent; whether he got another package of candy or not was entirely left to chance.

We cannot doubt that the facts found in the verdict constitute the offence charged in the indictment. A scheme-called “a gift enterprise,” and so licensed in this state, having features in some respects strikingly like those in this case, was held to be a lottery under the statute. State v. Bryant, 74 N. C., 207.

No error. Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Merrimon, J.

A lottery, within the meaning of the statute of this state forbidding lotteries (Bat. Rev., ch. 32, §69), is a scheme, devise or game of hazard, wheréby for a smaller sum of money, or other thing of value, the person dealing therein •by chance or hazard, or contingency, may or may not get money or other thing of value, of greater or less value, or in some cases no value at all, from the owners or managers of such lottery. 2 Bish. Cr. L., §§945, 946, and notes.

It appears from the facts found in the special verdict in the case before us, that the defendants carried on the business whereby they would sell to their customers small boxes of candy of trifling value. This was the consideration for the chance or opportunity to designate, with a cue or slender stick, one of a number of pictures of uniform size set in a line on the wall across the counter, behind some of which were small sums of money, various in amount, and behind others of them were cards on which was the letter “ Q.” If the customer happened to designate a picture with money behind it, he got the money; if he happened to designate a picture with a card with the letter “C” on it behind it, he became entitled to recover another box *574 of candy similar to tiie one be bad purchased. The customer did not know which of the pictures on the line the money was behind, nor the amount, nor did he know which of them the card with the letter “C” on it was behind, until he had exercised his right to designate one of the pictures at random. It was purely hazard; whether he got money was contingent; whether he got a larger or smaller sum was contingent; whether he got another package of candy or not was entirely left to chance.

We cannot doubt that the facts found in the verdict constitute the offence charged in the indictment. A scheme-called “a gift enterprise,” and so licensed in this state, having features in some respects strikingly like those in this case, was held to be a lottery under the statute. State v. Bryant, 74 N. C., 207.

No error. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 N.C. 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lumsden-nc-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack