lottery principle in Texas

1990The addition of the language prohibiting "gift enterprises or other evasions of the lottery principle" 2 apparently was included in order to indicate the drafters' support of two Texas Supreme Court cases that held that the 13th Legislature did not license the operation of "gift enterprises" by the enactment of an occupation tax on them and that a "gift enterprise," as then understood, was essentially a lottery. 3 See Randle v. State, 42 Tex. 580 (1875); State v. Randle, 41 Tex. 292 (1874); 1 G.

1990The addition of the language prohibiting 'I ift enterprises or other evasions of the lottery principle" 9 apparently was included in order to indicate the drafters' support of two Texas Supreme Court cases that held that the 13th Legisla- ture did not license the operation of "gift enterprises" by - the enactment of an occupation tax on them and that a "gift enterprise," as then understood, was essentially a lottery.3 See Randle v. State, 42 Tex. 580 (1875); State v. Randle, 41 Tex. 292 (1874); 1 G.

1990The addition of the language prohibiting "gift enterprises or other evasions of the lottery principle" 2 apparently was included in order to indicate the drafters' support of two Texas Supreme Court cases that held that the 13th Legislature did not license the operation of "gift enterprises" by the enactment of an occupation tax on them and that a "gift enterprise," as then understood, was essentially a lottery. 3 See Randle v. State, 42 Tex. 580 (1875); State v. Randle, 41 Tex. 292 (1874); 1 G.

1990The addition of the language prohibiting 'I ift enterprises or other evasions of the lottery principle" 9 apparently was included in order to indicate the drafters' support of two Texas Supreme Court cases that held that the 13th Legisla- ture did not license the operation of "gift enterprises" by - the enactment of an occupation tax on them and that a "gift enterprise," as then understood, was essentially a lottery.3 See Randle v. State, 42 Tex. 580 (1875); State v. Randle, 41 Tex. 292 (1874); 1 G.

2015A satisfactory definition is given in State v. Lipkin, 169 N. C. 265, 271 , 84 S. E. 340, 342 , L.

2015A satisfactory definition is given in State v. Lipkin, 169 N. C. 265, 271 , 84 S. E. 340, 342 , L.

1994At most, these briefs argue, operation of a slot machine is an "evasion based on the lottery principle." When, in 1980, the "other evasions" language was deleted from article III, section 47, these briefs contend that the constitutional proscription against slot machines was lifted. 2 As early as 1899, however, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that operation of a "slot machine," as described therein, 3 constituted a "lottery." Prendergast v. State, 57 S.W. 850 , 851 (Tex.Crim.App. 1899).

1994At most, these briefs argue, operation of a slot machine is an "evasion based on the lottery principle." When, in 1980, the "other evasions" language was deleted from article III, section 47, these briefs contend that the constitutional proscription against slot machines was lifted. 2 As early as 1899, however, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that operation of a "slot machine," as described therein, 3 constituted a "lottery." Prendergast v. State, 57 S.W. 850 , 851 (Tex.Crim.App. 1899).

2022Because the constitution has required the legislature to prohibit lotteries both before and after 1980, the “as well as . . . evasions” deletion is beside the point here.18 And despite the Operators’ efforts to parse it favorably, in our view City of Wink does not support their idea that the supreme court “did not suggest” that the three elements “are sufficient alone.” The only reason the court there discussed the theater’s “bank night” drawing in terms of a lottery evasion, as opposed to holding that it was an outright lottery, was that to be entered into the weekly chance drawing at the the

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Featherstone v. Independent Service Station Ass'n of Texas, 10 S.W.2d 124 (1928) The people of this state were so intent on outlawing the lottery, they refused to commit the subject to the discretion of the Legislature, but commanded, in section 47, art. 3, of the Constitution that: “The Legislature shall pass laws prohibiting the establishment of lotteries and gift enterprises in this state, as well as the sale of tickets in lotteries, gift enterprises or other evasions involving the lottery principle, established or existing in other states.” In

1998CiiyofTaarkana,596S.W.2d 157,160n.l (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1979,mitref dn.r.e.) (citing San Antonio Conservation Sot ‘y, Inc. v. City ofSun Antonio, 455 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. 1970)).

1971Barry v. State, 45 S.W. 571 (Tex.Crim. 1898).

1949However strenuously ap - pellant may contend that his exhibition of chance for a money prize was free, we con- elude that the fees exacted of those who came to enjoy his cycle of amusement supplied the element of consideration; the business, as a result, assuming every aspect of a lottery within the meaning of the statute; based, as it is, on Art. 3, sec. 47 of our Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St., reading: “The Legislature shall pass laws prohibiting the establishment of lotteries and gift enterprises in this State, as well as the sale of tickets in lotteries, gift enterprises or other evasions

1949However strenuously ap - pellant may contend that his exhibition of chance for a money prize was free, we con- elude that the fees exacted of those who came to enjoy his cycle of amusement supplied the element of consideration; the business, as a result, assuming every aspect of a lottery within the meaning of the statute; based, as it is, on Art. 3, sec. 47 of our Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St., reading: “The Legislature shall pass laws prohibiting the establishment of lotteries and gift enterprises in this State, as well as the sale of tickets in lotteries, gift enterprises or other evasions