Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-12-28

Continued From Page One)
they have attempted to get county and
city authorities throughout the State to
strictly enforce the State prohibition law,
which provides more drastic punishment
than the national law
However, 1t has been recognized that
the use Of the automobile is one of the
chief parts OF the machinery for Illicit
traffic in liquor To break up the use
OF the automobile In the underground
transportation system as far as possible
the Government some time ago decided
20 start selling the cars of bootlegg"rs
and rum-runners wherever possible.
since the offenders were not being prose-
cuted under the Federal laws 1t was i'm
possible TO seize the cars under the Vol
stead act so It was decided to proceed
under Sections $3.50 and 1888 Of the Re
vised statutes Section $3.50 provides for
the seizure of any vehicle used in the
transportation Of liquor upon which the
Federal taxes have not been paid and
Section 325s provides for the seizure Of
any and all property found upon prem
lSes where an Illicit still is in operation.
rs CARS
SEIZED.
Under this arrangement Federal Pro-
hibition agents have seized approximate
Is seventy-hve automobiles In various
paris os Indiana. Six libel proceedings.
by which the government would obtain
legal possession OF these cars. have been
started against about forty persons. In
these forty cases some twenty persons,
other than those from whom the cars
were seized. have aled claims that they
are the rightful owners and that the cars
should be turned over 10 them.
The question as to the legality Of sec
tons $3.50 and 325S WAS raised In the
suit ~ the Government 20 libel an auto
mobile which was seized by the police
Of indianapolis for the prohibition agents
from Clifford II. CappS. 1880 Ludlow ave
nue.. The Indiana Investment and Securi-
ties Company. represented by Judge
feathers, claimed The car on the ground
that Il had obtained title 20 It by pur-
chasing negotiable paper from the J. v.
Lines Company, from which Capps pur
chased It under a conditional sale con
tract. Judge feathers claimed that the
government could not keep the car. since
Capps had never finished paying for II,
aud that hence the title rested with the
indiana Investment and Securities Com
plny. which had no knowledge that Il
was to he used 70 violate the prohibition
or revenue laws. lie further contended.
since the lihci procedure was brought
under the revenue statuutss. that these
sections are no longer In force.
Section 34J0, under which this particu-
lar case was instituted. provides FOR the
seizure OF vehicles being used 10 trans
port liquor upon which the Federal tax
has not been paid.
oLIN SALES co.
CLAIMS TWO CARS.
The DIN Sales Company appeared as
claimant of ear seized by the local
police from Harley Carleton. 50l Ken
lucky avenue II WAS shown that earle
ton IS I'm the Marion County Jail serving
state court sentence for violating the
liquor laws and the case was continued.
The Olin Sales Company claimed that
Il was the rtghtful owner OF the car
under the arrangement cited by the 9th
er sales agencies and negotiable paper
dealers.
The OIn agency also appeared as
claimant OF a car seized by the police
from Elmer Hansen, 1910 English ave
nue. II was stated that Hansen Dor
rowed the car from Mrs Harry Wash
burn. then serving time at the State
penal farm for violation of the liquor
laws, and that Washburn had purchased
1t upon the payment plan from the DIN
company.
The three cases which were postponed
were az follows;
-John Hornbcrger. 1Tl0 Union street,
claimed Il car seized from his son. Clar-
ence Hornberger, while the latter was
alleged to have been running" with
IT,
The L. W. Steinhnrt Terre Haute Com
pany. automobile sales agency, and the
Allen e Steen Company. negotiable paper
dealers, both of Terre Haute. claimed
two cars seized from Thomas Garner at
Terre Haute. The same credit arrange
ment prevailed In this case.
Two cars seized from William Smith
and William Shoemaker 1874 West Ari-
IONA street. by the police. were claimed
by Mrs. William Smith and Mrs. William
Shoemaker, on the ground that each
owned the cars since they had furnished
the funds for their purchase and that
neither knew the husbands were going
to use the cars for Illegal purposes.
When attorneys announced that Henry
Carleton could not appear in court be
cause he was In jail Judge Anderson
asked:
Are you sure he hasn't been par
doned?'
Attorney symmes replied that he didn't
know because he was not involved In
the county court case.
well, this is the yuletide season when
they are supposed to pass out the par
dons, you know" the court continued.