4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 47 (view source)
Revision as of 15:54, July 25, 2023
, July 25, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
* ''City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co.'', 100 S.W.2d 695, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/100_SW2_695.pdf#page=7 701] (Tex. 1936) ("If it be granted that the plan of defendant in error's 'Bank Night' was not a lottery because a charge was not made for the registration entitling one to participate in the drawing (and this is the only distinction which is here or could be made), then it clearly comes within the condemnatory terms of the Constitution, because it is a 'gift enterprise' involving the lottery principle, which the authorities hold is that principle by which something is to be given by chance. . . . Being condemned by the Constitution, it is against the 'public policy of the State.'") | * ''City of Wink v. Griffith Amusement Co.'', 100 S.W.2d 695, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/100_SW2_695.pdf#page=7 701] (Tex. 1936) ("If it be granted that the plan of defendant in error's 'Bank Night' was not a lottery because a charge was not made for the registration entitling one to participate in the drawing (and this is the only distinction which is here or could be made), then it clearly comes within the condemnatory terms of the Constitution, because it is a 'gift enterprise' involving the lottery principle, which the authorities hold is that principle by which something is to be given by chance. . . . Being condemned by the Constitution, it is against the 'public policy of the State.'") | ||
* ''Panas v. Texas Breeders & Racing Ass'n'', 80 S.W.2d 1020, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Panas v. Texas Breeders & Racing Ass'n'', 80 S.W.2d 1020, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/080_SW2_1020.pdf#page=5 1024] (Tex.Civ.App.–Galveston 1935, dism'd) ("We do not think the certificate system of betting on horse races can be called a lottery, as that term is used in section 47, article 3, of our Constitution, which prohibits 'the establishment of lotteries * * * or other evasions involving the lottery principle, established or existing in other States.' The Legislature in enacting the certificate system of conducting horse racing did not consider such legislation a violation of our constitutional prohibition against conducting lotteries.") | ||
* ''Prendergast v. State'', 57 S.W. 850, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_057_SWR_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/Vol_057_SWR_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.") | ||