Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1902-10-16
BLIND AND LAME RIDERS.
VERY PECULIAR CASE JUST De.
plpEo IN EEnLlN.
Troubles Caused by Their Inf1rmitiee
and Not Punishable, as Taey
Did the Best They
Could.

A peculiar case came DeIOre Tue Dci-
lin City police court the other day,
which proved again that things hap
pen in a great city stranger than any
in fiction. The police court was called
upon to decide whether blind man
could be made responsible for not see
ing a policeman and lame man Tor
not jumping when told to.
The facts in the matter were these:
Two friends, a blind man and a lame
man, bought q tandem wheel for their
common use. The front seat was TAX
en- by the lame fellow, for he could see
perfectly well; his feet, however, be-
ing almost useless, rested against the
coasting pegs provided on the front
fork most of the time, since It was not
necessary for him to tread the pedals.
The blind man, gifted with pair Of
good, strong legs, easily did the ped
aling for both If the lame fellow In
front of him steered the wheels prop
I erly and kept him posted of what was
sgoing on in front. This division Of Ia
Dor worked splendidly for awhile, and
everything went WE'LL they often rode
out into the country about Berlin last
summer, and their health was greatly
benefited by the wholesome exercise
outdoors.
But in Berlin cycling Is restricted
and certain streets are forbidden
ground for wheelmen, who must get
of and push their wheels if they have
to rass through them. This restrlc-
ton having recently been extended to
several additional streets unknown to
these two wheelmen was at the bot
tom Of all the trouble that brought
them into court, and also of the diem
ma Of the police Judge, who for once
struck snag. Entering one Of the
newly-tabOoed streets, policeman
beckoned to the riders on that tandem
from afar 10 get off. The lame fellow
noticed 1t and told his blind comrade,
putting on the brake at the same time.
The blind man thought they had bet
ter dsmount, which LIE did immediate
w. but the lame fellow could not get
down from the wheel as easily on &C.
count of his deformity. In the mean
time the policeman came up and ar
rested the two men. They were fined
two marks 80 cents each for riding in
a street where bicycles are not al
lowed, and not getting off at once af-
ter being told to-
The two men appealed the case, as
they thought they were wronged by
the police, The Appellate court had
the case on the calendar two weeks
ago, and the Judge presiding Cancelled
the former verdict with the following
argument: The statements of the po-
liceman are perfectly true, and the
court does not doubt his veracity for
a moment. Yet the defendants can
not be said to be in the wrong, for the
blind man had not seen the policeman,
and, or course, could not tell whether
he was riding in a forbidden street OF
not. The lame man had, according to
his own admission, seen the police
man and Informed the blind man Of
the fact; 1t took a certain appreciable
time, however, for the blind man ia
realize what was told him, and to stop
pedalng; Furthermore the lame man
did not refuse to get off, but he got off
after the blind man had got off and
stopped the wheel. He can not be
blamed for not getting off faster than
he did, since lame man can not very
well be compelled to jump just tC
please policeman. Therefore both OF
them should 60 entirely free, and the
decision of the police Judge should bt
and thereby was revoked.