15 Mo. App. 433 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1884
delivered the opinion of the court.
The indictment in this case has two counts. The first count charges that defendant, at the city of St. Louis, on the 13th of October, 1882, did knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously make and establish, and aid and assist in making and establishing, as a business and avocation in said city, a lottery'and scheme of drawing"in the nature of a lottery, known as the Louisiana State Lottery. The second count charges that defendant, at the date and place aforesaid, did knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously, advertise and make public, and Cause to be advertised and made public, by means of certain notices then and there printed and circulated in said city and state, that a certain lottery and scheme and drawing in the nature of a lottery known as the Louisiana State Lottery would then and thereafter be conducted, held, and drawn monthly within the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, etc.
The jury found defendant guilty as charged in the second count, and assessed his punishment at six months in the workhouse.
There was evidence tending to show that the Louisiana State Lottery is a stock company organized under the laws of Louisiana, owned by the stockholders. The object of the company is that implied by its name. It has monthly and daily drawings in New Orleans and nowhere else. The company employs vendors to sell its tickets on commission. Kaub was employed by the company as one of its vendors, and sold tickets in St. Louis. He kept a bird store in St.
Besides the instructions as to the first count, and other instructions which we need not notice, the court gave the following instructions of its own motion : —
“ If the jury believe and find from the evidence, that the defendant, at the city of St. Louis, at any time from and after the first of July, 1881, up to and including the 13th of October, 1882, did feloniously advertise or make public, or cause to be advertised or made public, by means of printed notices then and there printed and circulated in said city, that a certain lottery, or scheme, or drawing in the nature of a lottery, known as the Louisiana State Lottery, would then or thereafter be conducted, held, or drawn monthly within
“ The court instructs the jury that any scheme whereby one, on paying money or other valuable things to another, becomes entitled to receive from him such a return in value or nothing, as some formula of chance may determine, is by law a lottery.”
Defendant asked the court to give to the jury instructions substantially as follows, all of which were refused, as were also instructions referring to the first count which we do not set out:—
If defendant, before the 13th of October, 1882, and after the 1st of July, 1881, advertised or caused to be advertised, for sale, any lottery ticket, or tickets, in any lottery or device in the nature of a lottery within this State or elsewhere, or at any time between the dates aforesaid, advertised the drawing of any scheme in any lottery or published such scheme, he was guilty of a misdemeanor to be punished by a fine of not less than one nor more than one thousand dollars.
In order to convict defendant of advertising or making public, or causing to be advertised or made public, by means of any newspaper or otherwise, any lottery, they must find from the evidence such advertising was done by defendant in the capacity of a proprietor or owner of such lottery. One who acts simply as an employee, on commission or for a salary, is not within the purview of the law.
The simple possession of circulars and printed matter by defendant is no offence.
Proof that defendant has sold, exposed for sale, advertised, or caused to be advertised, or kept for sale, any lottery tickets, or assisted in so doing, within this state or elsewhere, establishes only a misdemeanor under the law, and will not sustain a conviction under an indictment charging defendant with establishing a lottery as a business or avocation.
1. The statutory provision as to offences connected with lotteries in this state, in force at the date named in the indictment before us, and now, are to be found in section 1566 of the Revised Statutes of 1879, as amended by the act of the general assembly of the 22d of March, 1881 (Sess. Acts, p. 113), and in section 1567 as it now stands in the revision. The existing law, then, is as follows : —
“Sect. 1566. Establishing lottery — Penalty.—If any person shall make or establish, or aid or assist in making or establishing, any lottery, gift enterprise, policy or scheme of drawing in the nature of a lottery, as a business or avocation in this state, or shall advertise or make public, or cause to be advertised or made public, by means of any newspaper, pamphlet, circular, or other written or printed notice thereof, printed or circulated in this state, any such lottery, gift enterprise, policy, or scheme, or drawing in the nature of a lottery, whether the same is being, or is to be, conducted, held, or drawn, within or without this state, he shall be deemed guilty of a feloñy, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than five years, or by imprisonment in the county jail or work-house for not less than six nor more than twelve months.
“ Sect. 1567. Advertising lottery tickets. — Any person who shall sell or expose to sale, or cause to be sold or exposed to sale, or shall keep on hand for the purpose of
It is contended by counsel for appellant that section 1566 applies only to the proprietors of lottery schemes, and section 1567 only to those who, without having any interest in the lottery, are mere vendors of tickets.
No such meaning is apparent from the language of the sections; and we do not see how they can be so expounded without recourse to that divinatio, non interprelatio, quas omnino recedit á literá, and which is not to be admitted in the construction of statutes. The good and sound construction of statutes is that which first considers the true import of the words themselves, and then reads them according to the most natural and obvious sense of the language. Nor, when we consider the history of legislation in regard to lotteries in this state as shown by the changes in the statutes on the subject, do we perceive any reason for resorting to any forced construction to apply the remedy to the mischief, and carry out the meaning of the legislature.
Section 1567 was the only provision on the subject in the revision of 1855 (1 Rev. Stats. 1855, p. 629, sect. 28), and remains unchanged, except for the insertion of the words in regard to printing and publishing the advertisement, and except that the law of 1855 had an additional penalty of six months’ imprisonment in the county jail, which is now omitted. This omission was made in the revision of 1865.
Under the law, as we understand it, any one who establishes, or aids in establishing, a lottery as a business, or advertises such a lottery, is guilty of a felony; whilst one who merely sells tickets, or advertises the sale of lottery tickets, or advertises the numbers drawn, is guilty of a misdemeanor. A vender of lottery tickets may merely advertise that fact, and publish the numbers drawn; or he may establish a lottery as a business in Missouri, or aid in doing so, or adver
2. No person can be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor are admissions under duress to be used against the accused. But documents, such as forged notes, burglars’ tools, and, in this case, illegal circulars and tickets, may be used in evidence, though illegally obtained. They speak for themselves, and are not evidence given by the accused. Whether they are obtained by force, or fraud, or bv an illegal search warrant, it is held that they may be introduced against the accused on the trial. If the tickets and circulárs were illegally seized, the officers may be answerable ; but the court could not reject them, if pertinent, because illegally obtained, nor go into a collateral issue as to whether they were illegally obtained or not. This principle seems to be well settled ; and some of the cases which we cite were precisely parallel to the one before us, and, as it happens, arose from -illegal seizure of lottery tickets which were offered in evidence against the person from whose possession they were illegally obtained. The Commonwealth v. Dana, 2 Metc. 329 ; The State v. Flynn, 36 N. H. 64 ; Leggatt v. Tollervey, 14 East, 302 ; 1 Greenl. Ev., sects. 231, 254.
We see no reason for disturbing the conviction. The judgment is affirmed.