The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1900-07-21
DROWNED BOARDERS 5 PET.NO SPMCKELS SUBSIDY
HOW c. ROSE REMOVED A
CANINE.
Claimed the Dog Had Annoyed Various
Sick People-Defendant Fined Fifty
Dollars by Judge Wilcox.

The tale of a dog was told in Judge
Wilcox court this morning, and it gave
an opportunity for an internal boarding
house row to be aired. Charles Rose
was the defendant in a case of malic-
ious injury, w. T. Bray being the COM
planning witness. The parties in the
case lived at the same house on Haa-
lealea Lane, and though neighbors, they
were far from being good friends. AS
a matter of fact, the entente cordiale
was decidedly strained. The ill feeling
between the men was probably occas-
ioned by small pet dog belonging TO
Bray, and when Rose proceeded TO re-
move the cause of the domestic strife
by drowning the dog in the bathtub,
Bray became furious, and sought SatiS-
faction in the court. He got it to the
extent of $50, the amount of the fine
levied upon his enemy.
When the case was called, T. McCants
Stewart, the attorney for the defendant,
announced that they would enter plea
of guilty with the understanding that
they could place some witnesses upon
the stand in order to show eXtenuatlng
circumstances. Mr.. Stewart admitted
that though his client had not shown
much consideration for the feelings of
either the dog or the owner there had
been great provocation for the sum-
mary action that Mr.. Rose had taken.
1t was then that the rather original
method of trying the case, as if the de-
fendant had not pleaded guilty, was
witnessed.
f. e. Clark was the first witness for
the defence. He said that he had lived
at the same house with the defendant
and was acquainted with the dog. In
stead of the animal being worth 5000, as
claimed by Bray, the witness regarded
it as an ordinary cur dog. Bray had
caused the animal to become a great
hNr ri he
animal 10 fetch at late hours of the
night. There were several sick people
about the house, but this appeared to
make no difference to Bray. NJ. j. Bis
sci testified to the annoying character
of the dog. In fact, it had been a source
of much feeling among other people
about the house, who especially resent
ed the action of it's owner in washing
the animal in the same bathtub that
boarders had to use The dog had dis
turbed the wife of the witness while she
was sick, and on that occasion he had
demonstrated with Mr.. Bray about the
animal. There were, moreover, other
reasons why the animal was disagree
able about the premises, although sht
was quite small dog.
Charles Rose testified that the dog
had prevented him from sleeping 6
number of nights while he was sick
and although he had complained tC
Bray twice, the latter had still per-
sisted in causing the animal to bark
and raise a disturbance late at night
The same night that Mr.. Bissel com
planned the witness threatened to Kill
the dog as soon as he got well. His
opportunity for revenge came on July
g. when, in a moment of canine creduli.
ty, the hated dog followed Mr.. Rose into
the bathroom. Mr.. Rose lost no time il
giving the dog a bath which would bt
remembered, for he promptly drowned
the animal.
]. w. Rowell, c. l.. Spriggs and Mr.
Hendricks appeared as dog character
witnesses. Two of them had lived al
the same house with Mr.. Bray, anG
they announced that the deceased PEI
had fine reputation for amiability ant
lovable disposition. In fact, Mr.. Sprlggs
said that although twas an ugly cul
dog, won the love of all the boarders
The court fined the defendant $50