How have the courts interpreted the concept of paying for lottery tickets?

10 The defendants, sitting in the balcony had suitcases and a box containing 7,643 tickets which were made by the theater company for use by participants in the drawings. All of the tickets were arranged in the suitcases and the box in numerical order and were in various bundles held together by rubber bands, and on the bundles there were index tabs. The numbers on 1,185 of those tickets were not in consecutive numerical order. The remainder of those tickets, that is 6,458, were in bundles in which the numbers on the tickets were in consecutive numerical order, and some of those bundles contained 250 tickets.

11 See also: Commonwealth v. Wall (1936) 295 Mass. 70, 3 N.E.2d 28, 30 which stated:

'(A) game does not cease to be a lottery because some, or even many, of the players are admitted to play free, so long as others continued to pay for their chances.' and McFadden v. Bain (1939) 162 Or. 250, 91 P.2d 292, 295, where the court said:

To constitute a lottery, it is not necessary for all participants to pay for their chances, but it is sufficient if some do though many do not pay a valuable consideration. The legal effect of the transaction is not changed by the fact that some do not pay.'

(See also State v. Eames (1936) 87 N.H. 477, 480--481, 183 A. 590, 592.)