The evening times., 1898-12-17
INVOLVES NOVEL
POINTS OF Law
Seizure of a Bicycle for Non.
Payment of lnstallments.
TROUBLES OF A. R. HUEBNER
Claims Attachments Oh the Wheel
Wer. His Personal Property.
District Attorney MulIOwny Re
fuses to Act-A Question ScXinS
Many Lawyers.

A peculiar state of affairs arising out
of the seizure for non-payment of one in
stallment of one dollar of bicycle pur-
chased from the Acme Repair and Bicycle
Company by A. r. Huebner, of No. 1871
Fifth Streets northwest. is yexing a
number Of the lawyers around the City
Hail.
Mr. Huebner conducts store at No.
1921 Fifth Street and was rather surprised
when his wheel was seized:
He told Times reporter:
"Wednesday two colored men stopped
in here and asked for n cigar, and while
engaged in waiting on one the other, who.
L have since learned, is named Noble
Cooper, in the employ of the Acme Re-
pair and Bicycle Company, took my BIZ
cycle which was standing against the
counter near the door and made away
with il. l Immediately traced him down
10 the Acme Repair and Bicycle Com
pany's store and went in to inquire about
it. j. E. Shaw and r. w Watts (who
compose the Acme Repair and Bicycle
Company, after number of interroga-
tories by me, stated that they had given
! Cooper s. TO get the wheel and that they
| then had the bicycle in their possession.
The fact upon which they based their
| their right 70 take the wheel IS that l
! was behind In my payments 81, which
/ was due December 10. The wheel was
sold to me for $40 on the !nstalIment plan
and l have paid SO on it. j. T. Shaw
| called for the 81 due December 10 early in
the morning Of that day, ard as ] was
! short of change at the time / asked him
10 call later in the day for It. He did not
come again. but took occasion to
| decide i'm his own mind that l had not
! come up TO my part of the contract, and
! obtained possession Of the wheel in the
manner indicated. / have since offered
10 settle under the terms of the contract,
! but he makes a demand for larger sum
! on the grounds that it cost him 81 to get
his coiored boy to get the wheel back,
| and that | must bear that expense before
! / can haVe my wheel.
"On Ely wheel We're bicycle fixtures
| valued at 90 cents which were never the
| property of that company, and which
| were taken with the wheel. If the TAX
ing OF the wheel is not 4 violation OF the
criminal law. the taking OF my bicycle
fixtures is certainly larceny. Even
though the court should decide that these
parties had a right 10 take the bicycle
Yet the larceny of these bicycle attach
ments deserves punishment, and the Of
fense is aggravated at least on account
of the injustice in taking my wheel when
] WIS willing, and offered TO pay them
! all that was due the day they took il.
Il went 10 see Prosecuting Attorney
Pugh whether or not I could prosecute
the men and he referred me to Mr.. Null
| iowDy. He told me he could not prosecute
1 the case, as the mere wrongful Ia king oi
my goods was not larceny Wien / knew
VINO took them, unless l made demand
for their return and the demand was re.
fused, when an action for larceny woulC
probably stand.
Il consulted an attorney and was ad
Vised by him that this was new de
parture in law, and I think il well tha
the public know that unier the latest rul
ing of the prosecuting attorney tAIr Mul
l0wny) you must make denIaLd for th,
return OF stolen property before inten
can be shown that it was taken feloni
oIIsly.''
Mr.. Huebner was very Indignant at tn
: way he had been treated. and intends I,
seek redress the best way he can
a number Of cases of this kind hay
been brought TO the attention of the po
Ice court officials but they are power
, less. According to a decision delivere,
several months ago, company or indi
y.dual has no right TO seize or cause I
be seized any property whatsoever tha
: is being purchased from the company o
individual by another company or indi
vidual on the installment plan. becaus
r Of remissness of The party of the secon
part in paying the installment.
The decision holds that the party O
the second part has possession Of tn
f property by virtue of the fact that h
has paid something for 1t and is in realit
| e co-parlner or shares equal ownersbi
| with the original holder or holders of tn
| | property. In selling bicycles, however
the regular instaliment system is not cal
| ried out, and the agreement between tn
r ! would-be purchaser and the bicycle deale
is in the form Of a lease. The wheel
leased to the purchaser for certai
I length of time al a stated rate per montl
Mr. Huebner acknowledges the right
of the bicycle men in seiZing the whee
but claims they committed larceny in RI
tanning the attachments. which were h
personal property. 1t is claimed tha
wheels are often sold by the Acme Bicy
Gle and Repair Company that have fiXe
on them these sundries, which il appea'
l Mr. Huebner purchased separate, an
these sundries are charged for in the bill
The only persons who would know whett
. er the purchaser of the wheel bought tt
attachments at the same time or sepal
ately is the man making the sale. an
the proprietor or bookkeeper of the e
n tablishment.
r 1t is therefore claimed that when IL
wheel In question was seized neither
these persons were present and the ma
making the seizure was not acquainte
{ with the facts in the case. The takir
of ii even then would have been a la
ceny IL is claimed had not the Acme i
cycle and Repair Company offered to r.
\ turn the wheel 10 Mr.. HUI Hulbuar c
the payment of the costs of the seizu-
The bicycle company also claim that NJ
4 Huebner never asked them for the a
= tachments he claims belonged to hin
and they We're not awste that they Wei
on the wheel.
{ Huebner has employed able counsel an
will prosecute the bicycle company
possible. Their act is regarded by Other
in the same line of business as a pei
{ fectly legitimate proceeding and the lit
cation which may grow out of ii is onl
TO determine n technical point of law.
q q q q