Most days in the Hamilton
Police Court were routine, cases involving drunks predominating. However, there
were usually situations involving human interest that provided material for the
police court reporters with the Hamilton daily newspapers.
On December 14, 1918, the
Hamilton Police Court, Magistrate George Jelfs, featured the appearance of Mr. Ed
Leighton, charged with non-support by this wife, who had separated from him,
alleging domestic violence and the interference in their lives by her
mother-in-law, Mrs. Leighton.
The Herald reporter, writing
quickly so that his article would be in the afternoon edition, began his
lengthy account of the case as follows : “Sixteen
months of marital romance wrecked by apple of discord in the Eden of matrimony,
ye olde mother-in-law, was the tale unfolded in police court this morning.
Edward Leighton, 6 Smith avenue, and wife Rita, brought their linen into court.
It got an airing but not a washing.”
In her testimony, Rita said
that her husband had supported her up to last June, though they had quarreled right
along. Then, he ordered her to get out of their home after his mother had
accused her of going around with other men. Rta declared that Ed had awakened
her up by his efforts to remove her rings from her fingers on the morning
before she left the house.
Rita claimed that the first
payment of $50 made on their Smith avenue house was given to Ed by her father,
and that the second and last payment of $300 had been given to her by her
father.
In his statement to the magistrate,
Ed Leighton declared that Rita left of her own free will. He also said had, however, been out with other
men, and attended dances without him.
Rita immediately protested :“
‘If God should strike me down dead, that is not true, He knew where I went
every time I went out. Mr. Jelfs, his mother used to come to our house at 11
o’clock at night and cause trouble.’
The husband’s defense lawyer
forcefully questioned Rita, trying to portray Ed as a good husband, while at
the same portraying her as not being a good wife:
“In answer to Ed.’s counsel,
W.M. McClemont, Mrs. Leighton emphatically and vigorously denied being in the
company of other men, but she admitted to him that she and her friend, Miss
Hays, had given a dance in a public hall in West Hamilton last Wednesday.
“ ‘Have you anything to say
against the character of this young men? Isn’t he a respectable young man?’
demanded Mr. McClemont.
“ ‘No,’ murmured Deputy
Chief Coulter, who lives on the same street as Ed.
“ ‘You’d better keep out of
this. If you have anything to say against this young man, you’d better say it
on the stand,’ heatedly observed the lawyer.
“ After we got married, he
kept on going around with the girl he went with before he met me,’ stated Mrs.
Leighton.
“ ‘Oh, ho, there’s your model
young husband for you. Running around with other women,’ observed Crown
Attorney Washington to Mr. McClemont.
“ ‘He punched me and struck
me in the face and hit me with a towel,’ claimed Rita, but that matter did not
seem to impress Magistrate Jelfs:
“ ‘I don’t like to encourage
young married women to live apart from their husbands and get support from
them. I can’t see that there was desertion in this case,’ declared his worship.
“ ‘The case as it stands at
present is that the woman was struck at least twice and turned out of the
house,’ pointed out Crown Attorney Washington.
“ ‘Well, I hold that she
wasn’t put out,’ ruled the magistrate.
“ ‘Well, of course, if you
hold that, there’s nothing further to be said; but it’s there in the evidence, ‘
replied the crown.
At this point, the
magistrate attempted to reach some sort of reconciliation between Ed and Rita:
“Turning to the wife, his
worship inquired: ‘Are you willing to go back and live with your husband?’
“ ‘Yes,’ replied Rita, ‘if
his mother will keep away and not interfere with us. She used to come before as
late as half past eleven o’clock and make trouble between us. I begged her to
keep away, but she wouldn’t. I tried my best to do what’s right.’
“ Addressing the husband,
his worship then asked : ‘Are you willing to take your wife back to live with
you?’ Edward, who stood with folded arms and an air of injured innocence
throughout the case, answered in a thin, complaining voice: ‘She runs around
with too many men.’
“ ‘Well, it didn’t look right for her to hold that dance,’
commented his worship.
“ ‘There’s nothing to show
it wasn’t a respectable dance,’ objected the crown.
‘ ‘There’s no such thing as
a respectable dance outside of a real ball, and even then I wouldn’t encourage
my daughter to go to one,’ replied his worship.
“The case was dismissed and a legal separation advised.”1
The police magistrate was
the targeted for some pointed barbs because of his handling of the case such as
in the following
“Letter to the Editor :
Jelfs On Dances”
Hamilton Herald. December 16, 1918.
“Editor Herald – In your
Saturday’s edition, I see Magistrate Jelfs is handing out some of his ‘wise’
sayings again, namely : ‘There is no such thing as a respectable dance outside
of a real ball.’ To say the least, he is not very complimentary to the lady
chaperones of one large dance hall in this city, nor is he consistent in the
first place, is he not a member of the license board? Then why, if he knows so
much, does he issue licenses to so many dance halls in the city? Fie, you young
people of Hamilton! You who go to dances are not respectable. Jelfs has said so,
and has he not the wisdom of Solomon? I wonder how much longer this city is
going to be ruled by cranks? First we have Norman Clark with his fool ban, and
then ‘wise’ Mr. Jelfs with his foolish sayings. Both of them are big enough for
a job in Port Credit or Bronte, but not big enough for their jobs in a city
like Hamilton. Lucky for them both they are not elected by the ratepayers.
(To Be Continued)
