Thomas v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1871 |
| Citation | 59 Ill. 160,1871 WL 8010 |
| Parties | GEORGE W. THOMASv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding.
George W. Thomas was indicted, in the court below, for selling a lottery ticket to John McAuley. A trial resulted in a finding of guilty, and the assessment of a fine of $100, and costs.
The defendant thereupon sued out this writ of error.
Messrs. E. & A. VAN BUREN, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. CHARLES H. REED, State's attorney, for the people.
The charge against plaintiff in error is, the unlawful sale of a lottery ticket.
The statute creating the offense is as follows: “If any person shall vend, sell, or otherwise dispose of, any lottery ticket in this State, he, she, or they, shall be liable to indictment, and on conviction thereof, fined in a sum not less than $100 nor more than $500, and shall stand convicted until the fine and costs are paid.”
The following is a copy of the ticket sold:
“CHICAGO INDUSTRIAL COLLEGE AND HOME FESTIVAL.
This ticket is a receipt for Five Dollars, 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.
By order of the Officers,
THOMAS & CO. General Agents.”
Besides the ticket, a steel plate engraving was delivered.
At the time of the sale, a bill was given to the purchaser, entitled, “Grand National Festival, to erect in the city of Chicago an Industrial College and Home for Unfortunate Females,” and it was proposed to give a series of superb musical receptions, and a course of lectures, in Chicago, during the months of April, May, June and July, 1871, and at the close thereof, and after the sale of 200,000 copies of steel plate engravings, to distribute, as presents, 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 are the newspapers of Chicago, at a price from $2 to $12 each. The remaining 212 are estimated at $35,000 to $50,000.
The people also introduced, in evidence, other tickets and bills or advertisements of a similar kind, sold and delivered by plaintiff in error to other parties.
It is contended that the court erred in the admission of any of the papers, except the ticket sold to the party mentioned in the indictment.
Intent is the gist of an offense. If it can not be implied from the facts and circumstances which, with the intent, constitute the crime, then other acts of the party, from which it can be implied, may be proved. Whatever will prove the intent is admissible, either to show scienter, or guilty knowledge. It has repeatedly been held, that, in indictments for knowingly uttering a forged document, or counterfeit bank notes, proof of the possession, or the prior or subsequent utterance of other false documents or notes, though of a different description, should be admitted, to determine the question of intent. An independent offense is also receivable to show intent. Wharton Crim. Law, 292-301; 1 Greenlf. Ev. sec. 53.
This court held, in Dunn v. The People, 40 Ill. 465, that it was proper for the prosecution to read to the jury the contents of other envelopes, beside the one sold, for the purpose of showing the true character of the transaction.
The delivery of the bill, at the time the ticket was sold, together with its contents, tend to explain the object of the sale, and the manner in which the scheme was to be carried out. These papers were admissible to show the true intent of the party charged.
The principal objection urged to the judgment is, that the ticket in question is not a lottery ticket; that the sale was not within the purview of the statute, and that there is no chance in the scheme.
This court, in Dunn v. The People, supra, has accepted the definition of the lexicographers, that a lottery is “a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance.”
The ticket alone does not constitute a lottery, for we are not informed by it that there would be any distribution of prizes. When, however, we consider it in connection with the advertisement, we ascertain that there will be a distribution at the close of the concerts and after the sale of the engravings.
The advertisement contains this language: “There will be distributed, as presents, to the purchasers of engravings, in a just and legal manner, $200,000 in presents.” The term, “present,” though literally it means a gift, yet, in the relation, and in the sense in which it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equitable Loan & Sec. Co. v. Waring
...prevent the result. It is no answer to this to say that the company may devise some way to meet it. Such a suggestion met with no favor in 59 Ill. 160, and 33 N.H. 329, 66 723, supra. There is another thing which seems to run through all the calculations of the company. If a certificate hol......
-
People v. Monroe
...of the lexicographers, that a lottery is ‘a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance.’ The same definition was accepted in Thomas v. People, 59 Ill. 160. Webster's New International Dictionary defines ‘lottery’ as follows: ‘A scheme for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance, es......
-
People v. Folignos
...and competent to show such intent. People v. Hobbs, 297 Ill. 399, 130 N. E. 779;Schintz v. People, 178 Ill. 320, 52 N. E. 903;Thomas v. People, 59 Ill. 160;Higgins v. State, 157 Ind. 57, 60 N. E. 685;Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342, 10 L. Ed. 987; 1 Wharton on Crim. Evidence (10th Ed.) §......
-
Salt Lake City v. Doran
... ... law prohibits as criminal. (Buckalew v. State, 62 ... Ala. 334, 34 Am. Rep. 22; State v. Bryant, 74 N.C ... 207; Commonwealth v. Wright, 137 ... 228; ... State v. Mumford, 73 Mo. 647, 39 Am. Rep. 532; ... Hull v. Ruggles, 59 N.Y. 424; Thomas v ... People, 59 Ill. 160; United States v. Olney, 1 ... Deady, 461; Yellowstone Kit. v. State, ... ...