In England, and in most, if not all, of our states, lotteries are now prohibited by statute. A "lottery" has been defined as "a scheme for the distribution of property by chance, among persons who have paid or agreed to pay a valuable consideration for the chance, whether called a lottery, raffle, or gift enterprise, or by some other name." 20

N. C. 378, 72 S. E. 817. But if the circumstances show that the transaction was a speculation only, and that no delivery was intended, it is void, notwithstanding a rule of the exchange that actual delivery may be exacted. Beadles v. McElrath, 85 Ky. 230, 3 S. W. 152. See "Gaming," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. § 22.

18 Pixley v. Boynton, 79 I11. 351; Whitesides v. Hunt, 97 Ind. 191, 49 Am. Rep. 441; Bangs v. Hornick (C. C.) 30 Fed. 97; Jones v. Shale, 34 Mo. App. 302; Scanlon v. Warren, 169 I11. 142, 48 N. E. 410; Donovan v. Daiber, 124 Mich. 49, 82 N. W. 848. Otherwise by some statutes. Harvey v. Doty, 54 S. C. 382, 32 S. E. 501. So of the contract between broker and principal. If the broker is privy to the unlawful intention of the parties, his contract with his principal is illegal, and he cannot recover his commissions, etc.; but if he is not privy thereto, his contract is legal. Irwin v. Williar, 110 U. S. 499, 4 Sup. Ct. 160, 28 L. Ed. 225; Bibb v. Allen, 149 U. S. 498, 13 Sup. Ct. 950, 37 L. Ed. 819; Harvey v. Merrill, 150 Mass. 1, 22 N. E. 49, 5 L. R. A. 200, 15 Am. St. Rep. 159; Barnes v. Smith, 159 Mass. 344, 34 N. E. 403; Mohr v. Miesen, 47 Minn. 228, 49 N. W. 862; IN RE TAYLOR & CO.'s ESTATE, 192 Pa. 304, 43 Atl. 973, 73 Am. St. Rep. 812, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 233. See "Gaming," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. § 22.

19 Richter v. Poe, 109 Md. 20, 71 Atl. 420, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 174; IN RE TAYLOR & CO.'s ESTATE, 192 Pa. 304, 43 Atl. 973, 73 Am. St. Rep. 812, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 233; Story v. Solomon, 71 N. Y. 420; Apple-man v. Fisher, 34 Md. 540; Irwin v. Williar, 110 U. S. 499, 4 Sup. Ct. 160, 28 L. Ed. 225; Bibb v. Allen, 149 U. S. 481, 13 Sup. Ct. 950, 37 L. Ed. 819; Gregory v. Wattowa, 58 Iowa, 711, 12 N. W. 726; Cole v. Milmine, 88 I11. 349; Wall v. Schneider, 59 Wis. 352, 18 N. W. 443, 48 Am. Rep. 520; Woll-cott v. Heath, 78 I11. 433; Kahn v. Walton, 46 Ohio St. 195, 20 N. E. 203; Forsyth Mfg. Co. v. Castlen, 112 Ga. 199, 37 S. E. 485, 81 Am. St. Rep. 28. Parol evidence is always admissible to show what was the real intention. Clarke v. Foss, 7 Biss. 540, Fed. Cas. No. 2,852; Watte v. Wickersham, 27 Neb. 457, 43 N. W. 259; Gaw v. Bennett, 153 Pa. 247, 25 Atl. 1114, 34 Am. St. Rep. 699; Hentz v. Jewell (C. C.) 20 Fed. 592. See "Gaming," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. § 22.

20 New York Penal Code, § 323. And see People v. Lovin, 179 N. Y. 164,

In an English case the proprietor of a journal had advertised a "missing word competition," the scheme of which was that persons should guess upon the word omitted in a published paragraph, accompanying their guess by a fee, the money so received to be distributed among the successful competitors. The proprietor, after receiving the money, refused to distribute it, and suit was brought against him by a successful competitor. It was held that the transaction was a lottery, as the distribution was to take place by chance, and that the action could not be maintained.21 So guessing contests upon the number of votes to be cast at on election,22 the number of persons to be admitted to a fair,28 the number of beans in a jar,24 or upon anything else where it is a mere matter of chance as to which competitor will submit the nearest correct estimate, have been held to be lotteries.25

A scheme or contest may constitute a lottery even though each person participating is to receive some consideration for the money paid by him.28 A distribution, however, does not constitute a lottery where no consideration is paid, directly or indirectly, for the right to participate.27

71 N. E. 753, 66 L. R. A. 601, 1 Ann. Cas. 165; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497. 24 Sup. Ct 789, 48 L. Ed. 1092. See "Lotteries," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 3-8; Cent. Dig. §§ 3-8.

21 Barclay v. Pearson, [1S93] 2 Ch. 154. And see, as to what constitutes a lottery, Jackson Steel Nail Co. v. Marks, 4 Ohio Civ. Ct. R. 343; Caminada v. Hulton, 64 Law T. 572; gift enterprises, State v. Boneil, 42 La. Ann. 1110, 8 South. 298, 10 L. R. A. 60, 21 Am. St. Rep. 413; Long v. State, 73 Md. 527, 21 Atl. 683, 12 L. R. A. 89, 25 Am. St Rep. 606; Id., 74 Md. 565, 22 Atl. 4, 12 L. R. A. 425, 28 Am. St. Rep. 268; People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389, 17 N. E. 343, 4 Am. St Rep. 465; merchant tailor clubs, State v. Moren, 48 Minn. 555, 51 N. W. 618; prizes to stimulate trade, Davenport v. City of Ottawa, 54 Kan. 711, 39 Pac. 708, 45 Am. St. Rep. 303; Lynch v. Rosenthal, 144 Ind. 86, 42 N. E. 1103, 31 L. R. A. 835, 55 Am. St Rep. 168; State v. Investment Co., 64 Ohio St. 283, 60 N. E. 220, 52 L. R. A. 530, 83 Am. St. Rep. 754. A law prohibiting the giving of trading stamps held violative of liberty guarantied by constitution, since transaction prohibited not a lottery. State v. Dalton, 22 R. I. 77, 46 Atl. 234, 48 L. R. A. 775, 84 Am. St. Rep. 818. See, also, Ex parte McKenna, 126 Cal. 429, 58 Pac. 916. See "Lotteries," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 3; Cent. Dig. § 3.

22 Waite v. Press Pub. Ass'n, 155 Fed. 58, 85 C. C. A. 576, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 609, 12 Ann. Cas. 319; Stevens v. Cincinnati Times-Star Co., 72 Ohio St. 112, 73 N. E. 1058, 106 Am. St Rep. 586. And see,25 Op. Attys. Gen. 286. See "Lotteries," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 3; Cent. Dig. § S.

23 25 Op. Attys. Gen. 286.

24 Hudelson v. State, 94 Ind. 426, 48 Am. Rep. 171. See "Lotteries," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 3; Cent. Dig. § 3.

25 People v. Lovin, 179 N. Y. 164, 71 N. E. 753, 66 L. R. A. 601, 1 Ann. Cas. 165. See "Lotteries," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 3; Cent. Dig. § 3.

26 State v. Nebraska Home Co., 66 Neb. 349, 92 N. W. 763, 60 L. R. A. 4 IS, 103 Am. St. Rep. 706, 1 Ann. Cas. 88; People v. McPhee, 139 Mich. 6S7, 103 N. W. 174, 69 L. R. A. 505, 5 Ann. Cas. 835; Grant v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R.