4,839
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 47: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 47 (view source)
Revision as of 15:57, July 25, 2023
, July 25, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
* ''Prendergast v. State'', 57 S.W. 850, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/057_SW_850.pdf#page=2 851] (Tex.Crim.App. 1899) ("The machine retained the major part of the common fund, else it could not be self-sustaining. Nor was this a game of perfect chance. The machine was automatically constructed in favor of the keeper, and a man might play (that is, put his nickel into the slot), and not win anything. Consequently there would be no prize distributed to him when he played it. Evidently there was some effort here in the proof to show a similarity between this and a raffle, but in our view the evidence showed a distinct difference.") | * ''Prendergast v. State'', 57 S.W. 850, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/057_SW_850.pdf#page=2 851] (Tex.Crim.App. 1899) ("The machine retained the major part of the common fund, else it could not be self-sustaining. Nor was this a game of perfect chance. The machine was automatically constructed in favor of the keeper, and a man might play (that is, put his nickel into the slot), and not win anything. Consequently there would be no prize distributed to him when he played it. Evidently there was some effort here in the proof to show a similarity between this and a raffle, but in our view the evidence showed a distinct difference.") | ||
* ''Barry v. State'', 45 S.W. 571, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Barry v. State'', 45 S.W. 571, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/045_SW_571.pdf 571] (Tex.Crim.App. 1898) (citations omitted) ("One of the witnesses testified that he had heard it called a 'Cheap John Board,' and also a 'Cheap John Wheel.' He said he would call it a 'Wheel of Fortune.' We are of opinion that these facts would constitute this a lottery, within the purview of article 373 of the Penal Code of 1895. If the section of article 5049, above quoted, was intended to license lotteries, then it is clearly unconstitutional and void. The legislature has no authority to license lotteries in Texas, and any attempt on its part to do so would be nugatory.") | ||
* ''Randle v. State'', 42 Tex. 580, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/42_Tex._580.pdf#page=9 588-89] (1875) ("Mr. Bishop, in his Treatise on Statutory Crimes, shows, from his reference to numerous decisions of the various courts, that in nearly all the States of the Union, lotteries are prohibited, and those establishing them, or connected with their operations, are punished accordingly; and that the subterfuges by change of name, or plan of operations, have not availed the persons so concerned, as a defense to a prosecution; that the courts have seen through these evasions, and the law has been vindicated and fully enforced against the offenders.") | * ''Randle v. State'', 42 Tex. 580, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/42_Tex._580.pdf#page=9 588-89] (1875) ("Mr. Bishop, in his Treatise on Statutory Crimes, shows, from his reference to numerous decisions of the various courts, that in nearly all the States of the Union, lotteries are prohibited, and those establishing them, or connected with their operations, are punished accordingly; and that the subterfuges by change of name, or plan of operations, have not availed the persons so concerned, as a defense to a prosecution; that the courts have seen through these evasions, and the law has been vindicated and fully enforced against the offenders.") | ||