odd

OMG, BRIDE RUNS AWAY WITH BROTHER’S BFF

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Inside the heart of every teenager lies the Melodrama Bomb, poised to explode unexpectedly and elevate any bad situation into high tragedy. Was ever thus; if anyone tries to tell you that young people were more respectable and mature back in the Good Ol’ Days, consider it hooey. Beneath those worsted tweeds and stiff boned corsets the same emotions seethed.

(RIGHT: Natty and ready to blow at any time. Section from an ad in the 1908 Santa Rosa Republican)

Like “The Abductions of Geneva Eagleson,” this story seems ripped from the libretto of a good opera buffa, which is to say that it also could be an episode from a very bad sitcom. In brief: Mr. and Mrs. Weaver were at home in Santa Rosa when they were notified that their new son-in-law was in the local jail for intoxication. Emphasis on “new” – the marriage had taken place earlier that weekend in San Francisco. So what was young Charles doing up here, alone and drunk on the day after his wedding?

Newlywed Mabel wanted to celebrate with her brother who lived in the East Bay, and had written that she and Charles would meet him at the ferry terminal the day after the ceremony. But off the boat stepped instead her old boyfriend. “Browney” – who, it seems, was her brother’s roommate. In the tradition of a true cad, he had intercepted Mabel’s letter.

Mabel and Browney apparently spoke privately for a few moments. Charles and Mabel left the dock together, but she asked for some time with Browney to “see if she could not pacify him,” for he “felt very badly over her marriage.” The trusting Charles agreed. Five hours later, she returned. They quarreled (about what I cannot possibly guess) and she packed her bags and left.

Charles headed for Santa Rosa, apparently believing she was returning to her parents. On the ferry across the Golden Gate, “he took a drink to steady his nerves and then he found he needed another drink. So when he arrived in Santa Rosa he needed the police and a doctor,” the Santa Rosa Republican noted wryly.

When Charles and his in-laws appeared in court the following morning, her mother denounced Browney as a “villain” who supposedly once threatened to kill Mabel, and besides, was said to be already married. The Assistant District Attorney advised the family to file charges in San Francisco – if any crime actually was committed.

We do not know how the love triangle was immediately resolved, but all seems to have turned out well, at least for many years; through the 1920 census, Charles and Mabel can be traced to his hometown of Seattle, where they lived with their son, Clarence, along with her young nephew.

BRIDE AND FORMER LOVER DISAPPEAR
Husband Arrives in Santa Rosa in Search

Police Officers Skaggs and Lindley took in a young man, neatly dressed and well appearing, Monday night, who was under the influence of liquor. After Dr. Jackson Temple had been called to see him and he had revived somewhat, he gave the name of Chas. Brelle and related a strange story. He had been married only since Saturday and before the day was over his bride had disappeared with a former lover.

The bride was formerly Miss Mabel Weaver, a daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Weaver of this city, and is about 19 years of age. She left here Thursday for San Francisco to be married to Mr. Brelle. The young man says they were superstitious about marrying on Friday, so were wedded on Saturday. The bride had written to her brother at Point Richmond to meet her Saturday afternoon in San Francisco, but instead of the brother getting the letter, his room mate and a former lover of the young lady named Browney received it. He came over and met the bride of a day and since then all trace of them has been lost.

The husband started for Santa Rosa to see the wife’s parents, but on the boat he took a drink to steady his nerves and then he found he needed another drink. So when he arrived in Santa Rosa he needed the police and a doctor.

Upon being informed of their son-in-law’s plight, Mr. and Mrs. Weaver hurried to the police station and did everything they could for the young man and then took him to their home. Mrs. Weaver spoke of Browney as a “villain,” and said she would have him arrested. He threatened to kill her daughter not long ago. He is said to have a wife already.

It is said that Mr. Breele is of a very respectable family and that he feels keenly the disgraceful plight he was in when he reached Santa Rosa.

Breele appeared before Recorder Bagley Monday morning and was fined five dollars. He then repaired with his wife’s relatives to the court of Justice A. J. Atchison, where he requested a warrant for the arrest of Browney on a charge of abducting his wife. After listening to the story District Attorney Hoyle advised against the issuance of the warrant here, as the crime, if any had been committed, occurred in San Francisco county.

Breele related a peculiar story to the court, showing considerable stupidity on his part and a quarrel that caused his bride of a few hours to leave him hurriedly. When Mrs. Breele wrote to he brother to meet her and the husband, Browney intercepted the letter and he came instead of the brother and met the couple at the ferry in San Francisco. Later Mrs. Breele told her husband that Browney had declared he felt very badly over her marriage to him, and she suggested she had better go and have a talk with Browney and see if she could not pacify him. To this the husband acquiesced, saying he could trust his wife. She remained with Browney from noon until nearly 5 o’clock, and then when she returned to the husband there was a slight quarrel. This resulted in the wife packing her belongings in a grip and departing. The husband walked with her for several blocks on Market street and they parted. He is now seeking her industriously.

– Santa Rosa Republican, March 31, 1908

Read More

THE LAWSUIT THAT WOULDN’T DIE

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Quiz time: What’s more absurd than a lawsuit over the ownership of a dead dog?

You should read the earlier articles to relish the profound craziness of this feud over Queen, “a valuable varmint dog.” The case began in 1905 (1904?) and rumbled through the courts even after the pooch was killed in the Great Earthquake. Judge Seawell finally ruled in 1907 on who owned Queen, ordering Mr. Peterson to pay Mr. Frese $25.00 (heaven knows what all the legal bills were by this time). But even though the question of ownership of a deceased dog was settled, the courtroom combat began again in 1908 over a new crucial legal issue: Who owned her puppies? “There is a whole lot of principle as well as dogs mixed up in this case,” a wag remarked to the Press Democrat court reporter.

‘QUEEN’ IS DEAD BUT OFFSPRING LIVES
“The Dog Suit” Still on the Tapis and “The Pup Suit” Is Yet to Figure in Legal Annals

The end is not yet. The dead “Queen” is to be resurrected and her good points extolled once more in legal oratory in Judge Seawell’s department on the Superior Court. Not only that but the recovery of her progeny is to figure in another battle in the hall of justice. The latter consists of two well developed pups.

“Queen,” it will be remembered, has been dead nearly two years now. About the time of the earthquake this now celebrated canine expired from shock, leaving two little puppies to shift for themselves. “Queen” — the dead one–was alive when the litigation started, in which J. H. Frese figures as plaintiff and U. G. Peterson is defendant.

It was for the recovery of the dog that the first suit was brought. It started in the Justice Court some three years ago and from there went on appeal to the Superior Court, where it has been on trial and in many other phases since. Last Monday the suit of Frese vs. Peterson came up on a motion for a change of judgment and was set down for hearing next Monday by Judge Seawell.

Attorney Thomas J. Butts, who is counsel for the plaintiff, stated yesterday that he is going to bring another suit against the defendant for the recovery of the offspring of the deceased “Queen.” They are said to be very valuable dogs. “There is a whole lot of principle as well as dogs mixed up in this case,” someone ventured yesterday. It might be added that it costs something, too.

– Press Democrat, February 8, 1908

Read More

THE MANIAC WHO CAME TO DINNER

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Everyone’s endured a few bad houseguests, but none so horrible I considered attacking them with an iron pipe or hog-tying them with bailing wire. Well, not many.

Both of these odd stories from 1907 leave the reader hungry for additional details. In one tale, a stranger appears at a ranch near Cotati, where he’s welcomed to supper. Some time later, he “acted like a crazy man” and it was decided he must be tied up. The incident would be unusual enough if it just ended there, but the guest then “gnawed the rope in two as a rat would have done” and instead of quietly running away like a sensible maniac, he draws attention to his lack of bondage and is again tied up, this time with wire.

The other vignette has Mr. William Miller at the home of his sister in Guerneville. Allegedly caught peeping through a keyhole, sister Bertha “struck Miller across the head with a piece of iron and laid open his scalp.” Her husband then joined in and “finished the job she had auspiciously begun,” leaving Miller badly injured. Left unanswered is what Miller saw that drove the pair to beat him so brutally. Was he peeping at his sister, her husband, or the pair of them, behind that closed door?

HUSBAND AND WIFE THRASH THEIR RELATIVES

Constable Samuel J. Gilliam went over to Guerneville Saturday to arrest Clyde and Bertha Ayers, husband and wife, on the charge of assault on the person of one William Miller. According to the story as related here, Miller is accused of peeping through a keyhole and this is alleged to have been the trouble. He is related to the persons who beat him, being a brother of Mrs. Ayers. When the Peeping Tom tactics were divulged Mrs. Ayers is said to have struck Miller across the head with a piece of iron and laid open his scalp, after which the husband of the woman finished the job she had auspiciously begun. Miller was in a bad state as the result of his beating. He denies the peeping portion of the story.

– Santa Rosa Republican, July 6, 1907
MANIAC DOES SOME DAMAGE
Raised Rough House at Nesbit Ranch on Cotati

H. Canevascini made a rough house at the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Nesbit on the Cotati rancho Sunday evening and was with difficulty restrained from doing harm to the people there. He acted like a demented man and for a time Mr. and Mrs. Nesbit and others had a tussle to prevent being injured by the man. Canevascini jumped over the fence of the county jail Satuday while he was supposed to be sawing wood there and made his way under cover of darkness out of town. He was a trusty [sic].

When the man appeared at the Nesbit ranch he was recognized at once as a Petaluma man, and was given his supper and a hearty welcome. Later when he acted like a crazy man the men folks at the ranch had a hard time to subdue him. The cook at the ranch knocked him down with a chair and then his hands and feet were tied with bailing rope. The man gnawed the rope in two as a rat would have done, and it was found necessary to bind his hands with bailing wire which he could not gnaw.

Early Monday morning he was taken to Petaluma jail in this bound condition and was alleged to be insane. He will be returned to the county jail.

– Santa Rosa Republican, November 18, 1907

Read More