{
  "id": 8682298,
  "name": "STATE v. J. B. BRYANT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bryant",
  "decision_date": "1876-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "207",
  "last_page": "210",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. 207"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 6178,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.423,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.04677988875536e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9076077408374001
    },
    "sha256": "4e92ab5e922239adf0a2a31b31d77779f3e342d3c1e1584c87be3714a644e9cd",
    "simhash": "1:4d5ab5af3bf8b456",
    "word_count": 1128
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:39.099656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. J. B. BRYANT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settee, J*.\nThe enterprise descr'be l in the special verdict is a lottery; and a lottery is a species of gambling ; and gambling is immoral and is denounced by statute. But all gaiming is not immoral, and it may be that all immoral games are not prohibited by statute. And however immoral this or that game may be, we cannot go outside of the statu telawof thisState to punish those who play at them. The managers of a lottery and also their agents for selling tickets, are indictable under chap. 32, sections 69 and 90 of Battle\u2019s Revisal; but these sections do not embrace persons who buy their tickets.\nThe object of these two sections is to punish the chief offenders, who inaugurate and carry on the schemes specified therein, but they were not framed; to catch small and occasional transgressors of morals and propriety.\nThis is not so however with sections 71 and 72 of the same chapter, which denounce faro banks and gaming tables (other than a faro bank), by whatever name such table may be called 5 for in these sections the meshes are so adjusted as to catch botli large and small; in fact all who participate in such games.\nThe indictment in the case before us is framed upon section 72, but the facts do not support it.\nThe State lays stress upon the fact that the lottery, or game, if you choose, was carried on at a table. The classes of offenders specified in sections 69 and 70 cannot be enlarged, nor can those specified in sections 71 and 72 be diminished by the mere circumstance of the presence or absence of a table in the,; room or place where they carry on lotteries and games.\nIn other words while the seller of a lottery ticket is indictable, the purchaser is not, and simply for the reason that the statute makes it so.\nCan the fact that the purchaser of a lottery ticket, obtained \u00ed-it at a table, instead of on tbo street, effect bis guilt under the statute? \"We think not..\nWe have examined Bishop on Statutory Crimes, and all the 'eases cited by counsel for the prosecution and defense, and as far as they are applicable to our statute they support the conclusion at which we have arrived.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settee, J*."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B unbee db B unbee, for the defendant,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. J. B. BRYANT.\nUpon the trial of an indictment under chap. 32, sec. 72, Battle\u2019s Revi-sal, (betting on a game of chance,) the jury returned a special verdict, finding: At the time specified in the indictment, there was kept a place on Wilmington street, in Raleigh, where there were sold, small oval shaped cards, with certain numbers on them; that there were also in a box a certain number of envelopes, containing each one card with a number on it. The party bought one of the cards, and was permitted to draw from the box an envelope; if the number on the card corresponded with any one of the numbers on the oval card, the purchaser got ten times the amount invested. The envelopes and the oval cards were kept on a table at which the proprietor stood. The defendant bought and drew a card at the time specified in the bill of indictment. It was called a gift enterprise, and so licensed. Held: That the enterprise was a lottery, and the parties who sold the tickets were not indictable under said section, and the purchaser thereof was not indictable at all, for the reason that the statute did not make it an indictable offence to purchase lottery tickets.\nLstoictmeNT, tried before Watts, J., and a jury at January Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Wake county.\nThe defendant was indicted under chap-. 32, sec. 72, Battle\u2019s Bevisal, for playing at a game of chance. The jury rendered the following special verdict:\nAt the time specified in the indictment, there was kept a place, on Wilmington street, in Ealeigh, where there were sold small oval shaped cards with certain numbers on them; that there were also in a box a certain number of envelopes, containing each one card with a number on it. The party bought one of the cards and was permitted to draw from the box an envelope; if the number on the card corresponded to any one of the numbers on the oval card, the purchaser got ten times the amount invested. The envelopes and the oval cards were kept on a table at which the proprietor stood.\n2. The defendant bought and drew at the time specified in the bill of indictment.\n3. It was called a gift enterprise and so licensed.\n4. If, upon this state of facts, the court be of the opinion that the defendant is guilty, the jury so find, otherwise they say for their verdict that he is not guilty.\nIt was adjudged by the court that the defendant was not guilty, and thereupon the State appealed.\nB unbee db B unbee, for the defendant,\nargtied:\nDefendant is indicted in two counts, (amounting practically to one \u2014 the only variation being between a charge of playing and betting money,) for a violation of Battle\u2019s Revisal, chap. 32, sec. 72, for betting money or playing at a gaming table.\nThe defendant is not indicted for a violation of section 69.\nThe proceeding described is clearly a lottery. Bishop on Stat. Crimes, secs. 952, 953, 954, 955, 956. BM v. the Hate, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 507, 509.\nIt is not now indictable to construct a place at which games of chance are played, &e., as it was in 1848, as in tate v-Gu-j-ton, 8 Irecl., 273. Rev. Stat., chap. 34, sec. 68, is not now in force.\nIt is only indictable \u201cto erect,\u201d &c., and to play, &c., at a gaming table (other than a faro bank,) by whatever name called, at which games of chance shall be played.\nBy admitted law of construction, \u201ca gaming table, other than a faro bank,\u201d means a table of like kind. It is not intended that a buyer of a lottery ticket should be indicted, because there was a table in the room in which the tickets were sold, upon which they were placed. Rev. Stat., chap. 34, sec. 68; Rev. Code, chap. 34, sec. 72; Bat. Rev., chap. 32, sec. 72.\nAs to what gaming tables were meant, see Bisli. on Stat. Crimes, sec. 866 ; ltitte v. Commonwealth,, 18, B. Monroe (Ky.) 35, 39, 40.\nIn a game there must be a winner and a loser, but in a lottery as the prizes are to be distributed in any event, the man.ager does not win, because the ticket purchaser loses. Bishop^ \u2022857, 858. ;"
  },
  "file_name": "0207-01",
  "first_page_order": 217,
  "last_page_order": 220
}