holding that offense of illegal gambling requires “the payment either directly or indirectly by the participants of a consideration for the right or privilege of participating”
How later courts described this case
- holding that offense of illegal gambling requires “the payment either directly or indirectly by the participants of a consideration for the right or privilege of participating”
- prize drawing was not an illegal lottery because there was no consideration; contestants paid nothing to enter the contest, were not required to purchase any goods or services, and were not required to be in attendance at the store at the time of the drawing
- describing elements of offense of illegal gambling, including element of consideration
- listing elements for offense of gambling
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
Our able State’s Attorney has filed an exhaustive brief in connection with his motion for rehearing in this case. His discussion of the cases relied upon is quite enlightening. We cannot agree, however, with his contention that Cole vs. State, supra, has been discredited.
The portion of that opinion quoted by Judge Woodley is, without question, the rule by which this court should measure the record in the instant case. The crux of the opinion lies in the third section, or section “c”, reading as follows: “the payment either directly or indirectly by the participants of a consideration for the right or privilege of participating.”
The “consideration” in this case which moves from the parties participating in the drawing for the prize, or prizes, to appellant is entirely fanciful. It is not sufficiently substantial to be classed as a reality. If the people who registered are to *377 be construed to have paid a consideration by merely stepping into the house and signing their names, we would find ourselves in conflict with all the decisions of our civil courts on questions of contract involving a consideration. It would hardly be necessary to discuss the question if involved in a civil action. Just why we should use a different rule to measure a consideration is not understandable. We think the rule in the Cole case should be reaffirmed, so far as it applies to the facts of this case, and such will be our holding.
The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.