A STOLEN BICYCLE

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 59, Issue 58, 9 April 1930, Page 5

A STOLEN BICYCLE

UNUSUAL COURT SEQUEL TWO CLAIM OWNERSHIP. This morning, at the Hastings Magistrate's Court, Mr A.M. Mowlem, S.M., was called on to determine the ownership of a bicycle wbich was taken possession of by the police. The bicycle was sold to A. Smitli, sec-ond-hand dealer, by R. Williams, who later disappeared and was subsequentIv claimed hy one J. O'Neill, and there was now a doubt as to who was entitled to the bicvcle. Smith or O'Neill Mr E. T. Gifford apneared for O'Neill. Senior-Sergeant Carroll said that Mr Smith purchased the bicycle from Williams, who said the bicycle was his and in proof of his statement produced n receipt signed by Cliarles O'Neill. Jack O'Neill, in evidence, said that the bicycle in court was his. He bad left it outside the' Hawke's Bay Farmers' in Market street, but when he went tb get it, it was gone. He reported the loss to the police and on the same day, recognised it in Smith 's shop.

Thomas A. Smith, second-hand dealer, said he paid Willimas £2 10s for the bicycle. Before doing so. lie asked Williams if the bicycle was his and Williams replied in the affirmative and produced the receipt for it. At the tnne, there were a number of bicycles stolen, and witness at once rang the police and advised them of the sale. He also paid the £2 10s by an "order" cheque, as a safeguard for himself. He had taken every precaution. To Mr Gifford, witness said it was his custom to ring the police when he did not know who the seller was. To His Worship witness said he certainly thought he was entitled to some compensation and it would be hardly fair if he had to bear the loss of the £2 10s he had paid. Mr Gifford pointed out that there was no provision for such compensation under the Ac-t.

His Worship said he was aware that there was a legal difficulty but it could he got over. Tn this case the seeond. hand dealer had not only taken orclinary preeautions, bnt had also advised the police. True, he had seen the police rather late and had he advised them before advancmg the monev, he would have been better off. There was another point. The real owner advised tlie police of his loss and had the second-hand dealer not bouglit it, he may never have got the bicycle bac-k. PTis Worship was prepared to sav tliat O'Neill was the viglitful owner but he would make an prder that the bicycle not be delivered to him until he paid £2 10s to Mr Smith.