ALL OVER A BICYCLE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8189, 25 July 1906, Page 3

ALL OVER A BICYCLE.

It was all about a £5 bicycle, •and in the beginning it looked simple. A said that B was wrongfully detaining his (A'b) bicycle, and he went to the magistrate about it to--day« B brought a lawyer with him, and the lawyer asked questions and the case began to grow aomplioated. In evidence it oame out that the bike WBsh't really A's, because A had only borrowed it from 0. It was stolen from A, and six months afterwards it was seen oarrying D along •the street. . Then it was found that it was really in the possesson of B. Furthermore, it wasn't really O's bicycle, because it had been bought by B, who was 0 s father. Now B -was quite willing to band over the machine to anyone who could prove a legal title to it, and that was the difficulty. A and 0 and P(F sold the bike in the flrat instance) were quite sure that the machine that B had was the maohine that he had sold to E, and E bad given to 0, and O had left to A. But the lawyer man •wanted to know why they were sure, and that started the skein tangling. Eventually identification was narrowed down to a number on the frame of the bioyole. But there were two numbers, and could it he said that no other bike had one of them on it? Then 0 had an inspiration—he had bad his left pedal soldered in. The Court gave a sigh of relief, and adjourned till such time as an expert should have go to work on the pedal . spindle. Now, if the Court is satisfied that the bike is not the bike that A borrowed from 0, that was bought by E, then B ■ keeps the bike. But if not, then B must recover from G, who sold to him, and G will have to show that he isn't a thief. And there may be a whole alphabet of people behind G. There are exaotly 487 other possibilities in the case, but insanity threatens already.—-Dunedin Star.