Cole v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The opinion states the case.
1ConcurrenceHawkins, Judge
(concurring). — There is not now, nor ever has been, an attempt in this State to define by statute what constitutes a lottery. The term is defined by the statutes of only a few of the states. Corpus Juris, Vol. 38, page 288, Note 10, lists only four, but says “that such definitions seldom vary in substance from those established by the courts.” Having no definition in our statute we must resort to the meaning given the term by popular usage as determined by the various courts. When that is done it is clear that three things must concur to establish a thing as a lottery, (a) A prize or prizes,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. HundlingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1936
- State v. EamesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
- Randle v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- People v. Shafer, New York County Courts1936
- Prendergast v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.