The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1915-05-13
LOTS APPORT|ONED BY LOTTERY
Court Holds in the Case Against w. J..
.rhreinen That the Association Cannot
BY Law Enforce the Contracts For
the Purchase of Lots.

Holding that the plan followed by
the Industrial Association of Kenosha
in disposing of lots sold in the Rope
vile subdivision to raise money for
the bringing of the Macomber Whyte
plant to Kenosha was lottery, Judge
Belden in a decision filed in the circuit
court this morning holds that w. J.
Threinen may not be forced to fulfill
his contract to purchase a lot in the
subdivision. The case was test case
and it is certain that it will relieve
from responsibility scores of men and
women in Kenosha who purchased the
lots and after the lots had been drawn
declined to pay for them.
The decision of the court is hard
blow to the industrial association.
There are scores of people who have
refused to carry out the contracts to
pay for the lots and a big problem has
arisen as to what course the associa-
tion can follow to raise the money
necessary to carry out its own contract.
Many of the men who agreed to take
plant in Kenosha have refused to be
bound by any decision of the courts
and have insisted that they will pay
every cent that the contract calls for.
The decision of the court, however,
opens the way for any one who may
object to the plan followed refusing
to SETTLE In his decision Judge Beld-
en- says:
4" For the purpose Of encouraging
and assisting the location of factories,
Kenosha Industrial Association pur-
chased and plated certain lands and
offered and sold lots. The contract
with the defendant specifies, among
other things, as follows:
That the party of the first part
hereby sells and agrees to convey to the
party Of the second part, upon the
terms and conditions hereinafter ex-
pressed, one lot in the Kenosha Indus
trial Association s subdivision in the
Town of Somers, Kenosha county, Wis
consin, as shown on the recorded plat
thereof not heretofore sold,
and to be hereafter selected and desig-
mated for him by lot or drawing to be
conducted within three months from
the date of this contract, under mode
to be determined by a committee to be
appointed by a committee of holders
of similar contracts as this one at the
time of said drawing,o the purchaser
to pay therefor the principal sum of
5000, unless corner lot is purchased
in which event the holder of this con-
tract agrees to pay $3.50.
The lots were of unequal value.
Lots were selected and designated for
the several contract holders by a com
mittee, the names of the purchasers be-
ing placed in one box, the numbers of
the lots in another, names and num-
bers drawn simultaneously and the
numbered lot so drawn assigned to the
name so drawn. The defendant did not
actually participate in such drawing,
although that is immaterial. The con-
tract holders were not joint owners of
tie land or tenants in common prior to
such distribution of lots. This was a
lottery scheme, contrary to public pol
icy and statute, and therefore void
Within the meaning of statutes di-
rected against lotteries are contracts
for the sale of tracts of land of I'M
equal value to be apportioned among
the purchasers by lot (25 Cyc. 1877
This rule is so universal that it is
needless to discuss the matter or to
cite authorities. Reference to many
like cases, some identical with this,
may be found in % L. r. A. IN. S.
626, id 2S7. The courts uniformly
decline to enforce such schemes or
contracts.
The defendant is entitled to judg-
ment. -