
    The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Ottilia Bishop, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 23,482. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed January 28, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Ottilia Bishop, defendant, for violation of section 180 of the Criminal Code (J. & A. ¶ 3811), in unlawfully by lottery disposing of personal property, to wit, merchandise of the value of $10, to one Mrs. William Freeto. From a judgment of conviction and fine of $25, defendant brings error.
    Rosenthal, Kurz & Houlihan, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Lotteries, § 2
      
      —when recalled lottery contract admissible in criminal prosecution. Where an original, admittedly illegal lottery contract was recalled hy the party issuing same as the seller of certain merchandise, and another contract alleged to be legal substituted therefor, held that the former contract was admissible in evidence under an information charging only that the defendant unlawfully engaged in a lottery transaction, and not charging the illegality of the substituted contract, notwithstanding the latter contract was legal on its face.
    2. Lotteries, § 2*-—when evidence supports conviction, Evidence held to support a judgment of conviction on an information for unlawfully hy lottery disposing of personal property, where it tended to show that defendant had by her conduct led certain club members to believe payments would not be required of them under their contract, legal on its face, after they had received certain merchandise as a result of weekly drawings.
    Maclay Hoyne, .for defendant in error; George C. Bliss, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.  