Fitzsimmons v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff in error was convicted of violation of the clause of section 3894 of the Revised Statutes [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2659], which provides that no letter, postal card, or circular concerning any lottery shall be carried in the mail or delivered at or through any postoffice or branch thereof.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff in error was convicted of violation of the clause of section 3894 of the Revised Statutes [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2659], which provides that no letter, postal card, or circular concerning any lottery shall be carried in the mail or delivered at or through any postoffice or branch thereof. He was the president and a stockholder of a corporation organized under the laws of California, known as the “Cumulative Credit Company.” The company issued certificates, the provisions of which were…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The principal question here presented is whether the .scheme referred to in the mail matter described in the indictment is a lottery. The plaintiff in error urges that it is not, that, while the scheme may involve the element of chance, it lacks the element of prize which is essential to a lottery, and counsel for the plaintiff in error quotes definitions of “lottery” which include the element of prize. But in law the term “lottery” is of wide signification. In Horner v. United States, 147 U. S. 449, 13 Sup. Ct. 409, 37 L. Ed. 237, Mr. Justice Blatchford…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Public Clearing House v. CoyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Horner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Block v. DarlingSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Kirby v. WilsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
- State v. DearingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gray v. MontgomeryArizona Supreme Court · 1922
- State Ex Rel. Home Planners Depository v. HughesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- United States v. PurvisDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1912
- Territory v. SurHawaii Supreme Court · 1952
- Wells v. Penney Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.