## Facts

- John Sullivan was indicted under Pub. Sts. c. 209, § 1 for “setting up and promoting a lottery.”
- Witnesses described a numbers-type game operated in a small room where people entered, selected numbers, and paid money.
- Sullivan wrote down selected numbers, received payments, and explained the rules, including how and when winnings would be paid.
- The evidence indicated participants paid consideration for a chance to win a prize, and the prize outcome was determined by chance.
- The Commonwealth presented multiple related transactions (including on April 1) as a continuous course of “setting up and promoting” the lottery.
- The defense sought to impeach a prosecution witness by asking about a prior accusation that the witness fabricated evidence in another matter; the trial court excluded the question.
- The defense moved to require the Commonwealth to elect a single transaction rather than proceed on multiple acts; the trial court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Sullivan; he appealed by exceptions challenging the indictment, evidentiary sufficiency, and certain trial rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether an indictment for “setting up and promoting a lottery” that tracks the statutory language is sufficient.
2. Whether the described game constituted a “lottery” within the statute.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a finding that Sullivan “set up and promoted” a lottery.
4. Whether classification of a definitely described game as a lottery is a question of law for the court or a question of fact for the jury.
5. Whether the Commonwealth was required to elect a single completed transaction rather than treat multiple acts as one continuing offense.
6. Whether excluding impeachment questioning about a prior accusation of fabrication was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- Exceptions overruled; conviction affirmed.
- The indictment was sufficient because it followed the words of the statute.
- The described game was a lottery, where a price was paid for a chance at a prize determined by chance.
- The evidence, if believed, warranted the jury’s finding that Sullivan set up and promoted the lottery.
- Whether a definitely described game falls within the statutory prohibition was a question of law for the court.
- The trial court did not err in refusing to require election of a single transaction.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the impeachment cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment that tracks the statutory language is generally sufficient to charge a statutory offense.
- A scheme constitutes a lottery when consideration is paid for a chance to obtain a prize and the prize is determined by chance.
- When the game or scheme is definitely described, whether it fits the statutory definition of a prohibited lottery is a question of law for the court.
- Multiple connected acts in operating a lottery may be treated as one continuous offense of “setting up and promoting,” so the prosecution need not always elect a single transaction.
- Limits on impeachment cross-examination based on prior accusations (as opposed to convictions) lie largely within the trial court’s discretion absent abuse.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a lottery-promotion conviction, holding that a statutory-language indictment was adequate, the paid-chance game was a lottery as a matter of law, the evidence supported treating multiple related acts as a continuous promotional offense, and the trial judge acted within discretion in restricting impeachment and denying an election request.


Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 146 Mass. 142, 15 N.E. 491 (Mass. 1888)