In determining whether a certain scheme is a lottery or not, the court will look to the substance of the transaction and not the mere name.181

Thus for example, where the scheme or plan of an enterprise is to sell two hundred thousand copies of steel engravings by tickets of five dollars each, entitling the purchaser of a ticket to a course of lectures and concerts, and at the close of the lectures, presents are to be distributed to the purchasers of engravings amounting to two hundred thousand dollars, the number of such presents being three thousand and twelve, twenty-eight hundred of this number ranging in value from two to twelve dollars each, and the remaining two hundred and twelve from thirty-five thousand dollars to fifty thousand dollars each, such scheme is a lottery. The ticket alone does not constitute a lottery, for it gives no information that there would be any distribution of prizes. But when it is taken in connection with the advertisements, it appears there will be a distribution at the close of the concerts and after the sale of the engravings. The advertisement states that there will be distributed as presents to the purchasers of engravings, in a just and legal manner, two hundred thousand dollars in presents. The term present, though literally it means a gift, yet in the relation and sense in which it is used evidently means a prize. It is offered as a reward of contest to the purchasers of tickets and is something to be won. One ticket and engraving are sold for five dollars, one hundred engravings and tickets for four hundred and twenty-five dollars, and one thousand tickets for four thousand two hundred and fifty dollars. Inducements are thus offered to struggle for prizes. Such prizes are not gifts. The distribution is not certain and fixed, but to be by chance.182

176 2 Bouv. Law Dict., 86; 2 McClain Cr. Law, Sec. 1315; Ex parte Kameta, 36 Or., 251; Com. vs. Sullivan, 146 Mass., 142.

177 19 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, 588

(2nd Ed.).

178 19 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, 589; citing Homer vs. U. S., 147 U. S., 458; U. S. vs. Wallis, 58 Fed., 492; U. S. vs. Polizer, 59 Fed 272

179 Ex parte'Kameta, 36 Or., 251.

180 State vs. Pomeroy 130 Mo., 489;

People vs. Noelke, 94 N. Y., 137.

181 Dunn vs. People, 40 Ill., 467;

State vs. Clark, 33 N. H, 335; State vs. Overton, 16 Nev., 136.

So where a merchant advertises that to each purchaser of goods at his store to the amount of fifty cents or more, he would give a key, and that the purchaser holding the key that would unlock a certain box containing a sum of money which was in his store should have the money in the box. Such scheme is a lottery.183

182 Thomas vs. People, 59 Ill., 160; Dunn vs. People, 40 Ill., 467; Elder vs. Chapman, 176 Ill., 142; State vs. Lumsden, 89

N. C, 572; State vs. Willis, 78 Me., 70; Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 2257.