
    STANGER v. STATE.
    (No. 10935.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 5, 1927.
    1. Lotteries &wkey;»29 — Evidence held to sustain conviction of establishing lottery by means of punch board for distribution of prizes (Pen. Code 1925, art. 654).
    Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of. establishing a lottery, in violation of Pen. Code 1925, art. 654, by establishing a punch board in defendant’s place of business as a scheme for distribution of prizes.
    2. Lotteries <&wkey;3 — Any scheme for distribution of prizes by chance is a “lottery” (Pen. Code 1925, art. 654).
    Any scheme for distribution of prizes by chance is a “lottery,” within Pen. Code 1925, art. 654.
    [Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Lottery.]
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    ■ Appeal from Howard County Court; H. R. Debenport, Judge.
    W. H. Stanger was convicted of establishing a lottery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. D. Cunningham, of Big Spring, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is establishing a lottery; the punishment, a fine of $100. In the state of the record, we can only. consider the question of the sufficiency of the evidence.

Appellant exhibited in his place of business a punch board having holes in it containing strips of paper which were rolled up. The strips of paper were punched out with an iron key. Printed on these strips were various baseball terms, as: “First Base Hit,” “Two-Base Hit,” “Three-Base Hit,” “Home Run,” “Strike Out,” “Out at First Base,” etc. This was not visible “until after they were punched. If the person patronizing the machine punched a strip of paper calling for “Strike Out,” he got nothing except a piece of chewing gum worth 5 cents; if he punched a “First' Base Hit,” he got a piece of gum and 25 cents; a “Two-Base Hit” won a piece of gum and 50 cents; a “Three-Base Hit,” a piece of gum and 75 cents; and a “Home Run,” a piece of gum and $1. The price of each punch was 5 cents. The chewing gum was kept in- a box near the board. Appellant testified that he paid $5 or $6 for the gum, and that the punch board went with the gum. The evidence shows that several parties punched the board. It further shows that one person punched the board eighteen or twenty times and won 50 cents, but that he received nothing as he took his winnings out in additional punches. Another person punched the board once and received 25 cents worth of candy.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for establishing a lottery.

Article 654, Pen. Code, provides:

“If any person shall establish a lottery or dispose of any estate, real or personal, by lottery, he shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars. * * *!!

It is clearly shown by the evidence that the punch board was a scheme for the distribution of prizes, and that appellant established the board in his place of business. It seems that any scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance, under our statute, is held to be a lottery. See Queen v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 173, 246 S. W. 384, and authorities cited.

The evidence being sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      <g=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     