Stanger v. State
| Decision Date | 05 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10935.) |
| Citation | 298 S.W. 906 |
| Parties | STANGER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Howard County Court; H. R. Debenport, Judge.
W. H. Stanger was convicted of establishing a lottery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
J. D. Cunningham, of Big Spring, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The offense is establishing a lottery; the punishment, a fine of $100.
In the state of the record, we can only consider the question of the sufficiency of the evidence.
Appellant exhibited in his place of business a punch board having holes in it containing strips of paper which were rolled up. The strips of paper were punched out with an iron key. Printed on these strips were various baseball terms, as: "First Base Hit," "Two-Base Hit," "Three-Base Hit," "Home Run," "Strike Out," "Out at First Base," etc. This was not visible until after they were punched. If the person patronizing the machine punched a strip of paper calling for "Strike Out," he got nothing except a piece of chewing gum worth 5 cents; if he punched a "First Base Hit," he got a piece of gum and 25 cents; a "Two-Base Hit" won a piece of gum and 50 cents; a "Three-Base Hit," a piece of gum and 75 cents; and a "Home Run," a piece of gum and $1. The price of each punch was 5 cents. The chewing gum was kept in a box near the board. Appellant testified that he paid $5 or $6 for the gum, and that the punch board went with the gum. The evidence shows that several parties punched the board. It further shows that one person punched the board eighteen or twenty times and won 50 cents, but that he received nothing as he took his winnings out in additional punches. Another person punched the board once and received 25 cents worth of candy.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for establishing a lottery.
Article 654, Pen. Code, provides:
"If any person shall establish a lottery or dispose of any estate, real or personal, by lottery, he shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars. * * *"
It is clearly shown by the evidence that the punch board was a scheme for the distribution of prizes, and that appellant established the board in his place of business. It seems that any scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance, under our statute, is held to be a lottery. See Queen v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 173, 246 S. W. 384, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Village of Garden City
...P.2d 1029; 34 Am.Jur. 650, Sec. 7; 54 C.J.S., Lotteries, § 10, Sub. b, p. 856; In re Gray, 23 Ariz. 461, 204 P. 1029; Stanger v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 574, 298 S.W. 906; Helen Ardelle, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm., 9 Cir., 101 F.2d It therefore follows that slot machines, mechanical amusement......
-
State v. Brown
...1029; State ex rel. Olsen v. Crown Cigar Store, Mont., 220 P.2d 1029; Brewer v. Woodham, 15 Ala.App. 678, 74 So. 763; Stranger v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 574, 298 S.W. 906; Helen Ardelle, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, 9 Cir., 101 F.2d 718; Callison v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 468; ......
-
Moore v. Adams, 4496.
...places for gaming purposes. Lytle v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 100 S.W. 1160; Queen v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 173, 246 S.W. 384; Stanger v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 574, 298 S.W. 906. Article 1, § 9, of the Constitution of Texas, provides: "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and......
-
Boatwright v. State
...distribution of prizes by chance, under our statute, is a lottery. Queen v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 173, 246 S. W. 384; Stanger v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 574, 298 S. W. 906. The phrase "game of chance" is defined in 27 Corpus Juris, at page 968, as follows: "It is a game determined entirely o......