Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Ala. 334

Buckalew v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1878-12-15

Tried before Hon. James E. Cobb. Tbe appellant, L. L. Buckalew, was indicted for “ setting up or being concerned in. setting up or carrying on a lottery.” Tbe State introduced a witness, who testified that within twelve months before the finding of tbe indictment, in this cause, and in Chambers county, Alabama, “ the defendant had a mill, and in the mill house, on the head of a flour barrel, he bad wbat the witness called a board, on which was marked, in a circle, figures…

Relies on Salomon v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2004

12 state decisions

4018781880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

STONE, J.

¶1Lottery is a distribution of prizes by lot or chance. — Webster’s Dictionary; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. There are said to be two kinds of lottery in general use. One, the Genoise, or numerical system; sometimes called the combination plan. The other, the Dutch, or class lottery ; sometimes called the single number plan. — American Cyclopsedia. In each, chances are purchased, generally by the purchase of tickets, or fractions of a ticket. Not necessary, however, that tickets should be issued. Wherever chances are sold, and the distribution of prizes determined by lot, this, it would seem, is a lottery. This, we think, is. the popular acceptation of the term. We judicially know *336what constitutes a lottery. — Solomon v. The State, 28 Ala. 83. According to the testimony in the present record, it cannot, with any propriety, be said that chances were sold, or prizes won or drawn. In fact, nothing was sold. The entire theory of the game was, that several, or many persons contributed equal sums to a common purse, which was awarded to the contributor whom chance so favored, as to register for him the highest number. In its result, it resembles what is known in horse-race parlance as sweepstakes; or, a raffle, determined by the fall of dice. We do not think the proof established a case of lottery, or sustained the indictment. Code of 1876, § 4445. Whether the defendant violated section 4208, Code of 1876, it would not be proper now to inquire.

¶2We cannot perceive that the present case falls within any of the sections of our liberal system of amendments. — Code of 1876, sections 4815, 4816, 4817, 4818, 4819. It falls more nearly within the last-named of the sections ; but the indictment did not charge that the defendant kept or exhibited, or was interested or concerned in keeping or exhibiting a table for gaming, within section 4208; and there is nothing which allows us to infer that was the offense intended to be charged in the present indictment. The record shows an intention to indict for another offense. An indictment for exhibiting a gaming table would not be a continuation of a prosecution for exhibiting a lottery, and hence a new indictment for the former offense could derive no support from the mistaken prosecution for the latter offense. The indictment in the present record was found at the spring term, 1878, and thus proves the act complained of was done more than twelve months ago. — Code of 1876, § 4646. The offense is barred, and no good can come of remanding the cause.

¶3Eeversed, but not remanded. Let the defendant be discharged.

/62/ala/334 · .json · Public domain