State v. Moren

• Citation: 51 N.W. 618,48 Minn. 555
• Parties: STATE v MOREN.
• Decision Date: 09 March 1892
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

48 Minn. 555

51 N.W. 618

STATEvMOREN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 9, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Under the statute, (Pen. Code, § 282,) any scheme for the distribution of property by chance among persons who have paid or agreed to pay a valuable consideration for the chance is a lottery.

2. The statute is intended to reach all devices in the nature of lotteries, in whatever form, and the courts will tolerate no evasions for the continuance of the mischief which it is intended to remedy.

3. Where “clubs” of 40 persons each were formed by a merchant tailor for the disposition of suits of clothing, each of the stipulated value of $40, by lot, under nominal contracts of purchase, the price to be paid in weekly installments of $1 each, such payments entitling the holders of tickets to participate in weekly drawings by lot, with the chance of securing goods of the value of $40 at any drawing, without further additional payments than the weekly installments then paid, held a lottery, within the statute.

4. Members enter into the scheme with the chance and hope of winning $40 by lot for the price of a ticket.

5. A provision in the contract that each member of the club should eventually receive a suit of clothes, when he should have paid $40, if not previously drawn, or that he might withdraw at any time, and receive “the value of money paid in on said contract in merchant tailoring,” does not make the scheme any the less a lottery, or take it out of the operation of the statute. The sale of each ticket gave the purchaser a chance to obtain something more than he paid for.

Appeal from municipal court of Minneapolis; ELLIOTT, Judge.

Prosecution against Frank O. Moren for an alleged violation of the statute against lotteries. From a judgment on conviction, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Merrick & Merrick and D. W. Ellis, for appellant.

Moses E. Clapp, Atty. Gen. and Robert Jamison, for the State.

VANDERBURGH, J.

This prosecution is for an alleged violation of the statute against lotteries, and the complaint charges, in substance, that the defendant unlawfully sold to the complaining witness, for $1, a chance on certain personal property,-a suit of clothes of the value of $40,-such chance to be determined by lot between the complainant and a number of other persons, and dependent on the drawing thereafter by defendant of a lottery or scheme of chance, which said suit of clothes was then and there offered for distribution by chance among said persons and complainant, each having paid money for such chance.

The principal question upon this appeal, and the only one which we deem important to consider, is whether the evidence was sufficient to bring the case within the condemnation of the statute. Pen. Code, §§ 283, 287. The scheme which the prosecution complains of was evidently a device by defendant to increase his custom and sales by inducing a number of persons to enter into an arrangement with him to make weekly payments (nominally) upon contracts for suits of clothes, which payments entitled each to a chance, in weekly drawings, of obtaining a suit of clothes of the defendant by lot, without further payment, the winner to be then dropped from the list. There is no community of interest among the ticket holders, further than that they are all included in the list from which the drawing is made. Connected with the scheme is a several contract made by each customer or member of the so-called “club” with the defendant, with “coupons” indicating or representing the installment payments to be made before each drawing. A clear understanding of the nature of the case will be had by a reference to the testimony in the case. The complaining witness applied to defendant, “who is a merchant tailor in Minneapolis, to join a club.” The latter showed him a contract, and asked him to sign it, and required a payment of $2 down, and gave him what he called “Coupon No. 1,” cut from the contract, a copy of which is as follows: “Coupon No. 1. Moren, the Tailor. $2.00. Pay only $2.00 when signing this contract.” He said they had a drawing the following evening, and witness would have a chance to draw a suit of clothes; that they had a drawing every Wednesday, and that he had a chance of drawing something every time a drawing was had. Witness paid the $2, and signed the contract, which was left with the defendant. At the first drawing witness was informed that he “did not win his suit of clothes,” whereupon he paid the next installment,-$1,- for which he received “Coupon No. 2. Moren, the Tailor. $1.00.” The contract, to which was attached 39 “coupons,”-one for $2, and 38 for $1,-consecutively numbered, is as follows:

“Remember: Never pay a dollar without rendered a coupon. It is your receipt. Don't lose them; and have collector to sign his name to the same coupon. No agent...