State v. Wolford
| Decision Date | 30 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 22053.,22053. |
| Parties | STATE v. WOLFORD. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Wm. A. Cant, H. A. Dancer, and Bert Fesler, Judges.
P. W. Wolford was convicted in the municipal court of Duluth of selling a lottery ticket, and appealed to the district court, where the conviction was sustained, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The complaint sufficiently charges a violation of section 8728, Gen. St. 1913.
The sale of a ticket or instrument, evidently drawn so as to evade the effect of the decision in State v. Moren, 48 Minn. 555, 51 N. W. 618, but clearly intended to accomplish the same object therein condemned as a lottery scheme, constitutes a violation of the statute mentioned. W. F. Dacey and A. E. McManus, both of Duluth, and A. J. Hertz, of St. Paul, for appellant.
C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., Jas. E. Markham, Asst. Atty. Gen., Warren E. Greene, Co. Atty., John B. Richards, City Atty., and Harry E. Weinberg, all of Duluth, for the State.
In the municipal court of Duluth defendant was convicted of the offense of selling a lottery ticket. He appealed to the district court of St. Louis county, but the conviction was sustained, and he now appeals to this court.
[1] The complaint is attacked as insufficient. The substance of the charging part is that defendant at the time and place named did willfully and wrongfully sell to one Charles Anderson ‘a ticket, chance, share, and interest in a lottery, to wit, a ticket and chance on certain personal property, to wit, one (1) suit of clothes represented by said Wolford to be of the value of forty-eight dollars,’ and the said Anderson paid to said Wolford $1 therefor. We think the complaint shows a violation of section 8728, G. S. 1913, which provides:
‘Every person who shall sell, give, or in any way whatever furnish or transfer to or for another ticket, chance, share, or interest, or any paper, certificate, or instrument purporting to be or to represent a ticket, chance, share, or interest, in or dependent upon the event of a lottery, * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.’
[2] The ticket or instrument received in evidence, and which the state claims is the lottery ticket sold, is so evidently drawn with a view to accomplish the very same purpose which the instrument in State v. Moren, 48 Minn. 555, 51 N. W. 618, was designed to effect, that it must come within the condemnation of that case. The effort by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eckdahl v. Hurwitz
... ... 17 R. C. L. 1226; Paulk v. Land ... Co., 22 So. 495; People v. McPhee, 103 N.W ... 194; Burks v. Harris, 120 N.W. 979; State v ... Home Company, 92 N.W. 763; Hall v. Hughes, 56 ... N.Y. 424; Fleming v. Bills, 3 Ore. 286; Loan ... Company v. Warring, 44 S.E. 320; People ... ...
-
State v. Butler.
...United States v. McGuire et al., 2 Cir., 64 F. 2d 485, certiorari denied 290 U.S. 645, 54 S.Ct. 63, 70, 78 L.Ed. 560; State v. Wolford, 151 Minn. 59, 185 N.W. 1017; State v. Willis, Jr., 78 Me. 70, 2 A. 848; Clark v. State, 47 N.J.L. 556, 18 Vroom 556, 4 A. 327; State v. Rothschild, 19 Mo.A......
-
State v. Powell
...definitely enough held. State v. Moren, 48 Minn. 555, 51 N. W. 618; State v. U. S. Exp. Co., 95 Minn. 442, 104 N. W. 556; State v. Wolford, 151 Minn. 59, 185 N. W. 1017. Cases from other jurisdictions are in accord in principle and in some the facts resemble those in the case at bar. State ......
-
Amlie Strand Hardware Co. v. Moose
...State v. Moren, 48 Minn. 555, 51 N. W. 618; State ex rel. Hathorn v. U. S. Express Co., 95 Minn. 442, 104 N. W. 556; State v. Wolford, 151 Minn. 59, 185 N. W. 1017; and State v. Powell, 170 Minn. 239, 212 N. W. 169, involve the statute; but in all there was a chance bringing the transaction......