Plenty of Nothing

The Moorings

I'm told my parents met each other here. (Douglas.) Source.

The Hector McNeil Baths

My grandmother Catherine McLeod was a Labour Party organizer in Greenock in the 1940s. In 1941 the MP for Greenock, Robert Gibson, retired to become chairman of the Scottish Land Court, and a by-election was called to fill the vacancy at Westminster. It fell to Catherine to scare up a candidate. According to the story my grandfather Archie said, "That Hector McNeil's a good man." McNeil had stood for Parliament elsewhere four times already but lost each time. Catherine phoned him (their apartment was one of the few dwellings in the neighbourhood with a telephone) and in two hours McNeil was on the doorstep. He received the nomination, ran and won, and served as MP for Greenock until his death in 1955. He rose to the position of Secretary of State for Scotland in the Attlee government, was vice-president of the United Nations General Assembly in 1947, and helped bring the IBM plant to Greenock.

In 1963 the new indoor swimming pool on Inverkip Road was name after him. Isn't it the picture of Sixties functionality? If it were a coat it would have narrow lapels. The building was demolished in 2002 and the site remains empty to this day. Photos of the demolition here.

Falkirk visit Cappielow today. Last season the Bairns finished third in the division, though the Ton had the advantage in head to head meetings, with two wins, a loss and a draw. Falkirk were very active in pre-season friendlies, beating Stirling Albion, Turriff United, Fraserburgh, and Hearts(!), while losing to Alloa, East Fife and Middlesbrough of the English Championship, and tying Formentine United, Spartans, and Bolton Wanderers. They beat Stirling Albion in the first round of the Challenge Cup and Elgin City in the first round of the League Cup. Then they were selected to meet Rangers in the next round of both competitions! Morton haven't played Rangers in twelve years! Last Tuesday Rangers beat them 1 - 0 in the Ramsdens Cup. Next Tuesday they meet again in the League Cup. [Ugh. Falkirk win 2 - 1. Morton goal by Campbell. Partick take over first place.]

Today is Round One of the Scottish Cup. A gallimaufry of 36 junior and amateur clubs compete for the opportunity to draw Rangers in the next round. Let's keep an eye on Spartans, an Edinburgh club that has been trying to get into the SFL and would be my pick to replace East Stirlingshire whenever promotion into the Third Division comes to pass. [Spartans lost 2 - 0 to Wick Academy.]

£75 and Expenses

From the Glasgow Herald, December 2, 1936, page 9:

EX-PROVOST OF GREENOCK

Awarded £75 Damages

JUDGMENT IN SLANDER ACTION

At Greenock yesterday Sheriff-substitute Macdonald issued his judgment in the action by ex-Provost John W. Bell against Councillor Mrs Catherine McLeod for £150 damages for slander. Mr Bell completed his term of office as Provost of Greenock a month ago, and Mrs McLeod was one of his colleagues in the Labour group of the Corporation.

The Sheriff decides in favour of pursuer, and awards him £75 damages with expenses.

In his judgment Sheriff Macdonald finds that on August 20, 1935, the pursuer, at a meeting of the Finance Committee of the Town Council, raised the question as to the expenses incurred by the defender while on a deputation to London and Southport; that on August 22, 1935, the defender approached Peter McGregor Swan, James Heron, and John Bain, who were standing in Cathcart Square, Greenock, and in their presence and hearing addressed to them the following words: -- "What do you think of that scum challenging me for a day's expenses?"; that the defender then stated to the three men that she was referring to the pursuer, and further said to them, "He is a man that has been living on charity since ever he went in there," and "He has been living off the backs of the workers since ever he came to Greenock."

"FALSE AND CALUMNIOUS"

The Sheriff also finds that the words complained of were false and calumnious, and that defender in using the words intended to convey to her hearers and were understood to mean that the pursuer was capable of using and had in fact used the office of councillor in Greenock to obtain for himself some private profit, and that he had used the votes of his colleagues in the Town Council and his office of Provost for a similar purpose.

Further, his Lordship holds that in consequence of the defender's false and calunmious statements the pursuer has suffered in his reputation; that the pursuer has not stated on the public platform that he lives on the charity of friends nor used words of the like import publicly; that the said words were not used by the defender in the heat of anger; and that the pursuer in the Council Chambers at a meeting of the Finance Committee on August 20 did not make an attack upon the defender's character.

The Sheriff accordingly finds in law (1) that the defender, having slandered the pursuer, is liable in reparation to him; (2) that the pursuer, having sustained injury to his feelings and reputation by the said false and calumnious statements of the defender, is entitled to solatium. Therefore sustains the first and second pleas-in-law of the pursuer, repels the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh pleas-in-law of the defender, and assesses the damages due by the defender at £75 and finds pursuer entitled to expenses.

MRS MCLEOD'S EXPENSES

In a note to his judgment, Sheriff Macdonald states that what took place at the meeting of the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the Corporation on August 20, 1935, had a good deal of significance in relation to the incidents with which the Court was directly concerned. At that meeting certain accounts of the defender for expenses incurred by her when attending two conferences, one in Southport and one in London, came up for approval.

Before the defender came into the meeting the pursuer drew attention to the fact that there were two deputations, and that in defender's two receipts the same date, June 30, was mentioned. That implied that one day extra was being paid. Pursuer moved that these two accounts should be remitted to the Town Chamberlain, and that motion was unanimously carried.

CHAMBERLAIN'S VIEW

He was content, the Sheriff continues, to take the evidence of the Chamberlain, who was well able to judge as to whether or not there was any apparent irregularity about these accounts. The Chamberlain agreed that there was some apparent irregularity. In his view it would certainly not have been proper to pass the accounts in that state. According to the Chamberlain, judged by the Standing Orders, there was nothing wrong in the amount of the account, but there was something wrong in the date.

Referring to the incident at the Finance Committee meeting after defender had arrived, the Sheriff states, "It was important as giving an illustration of the defender's mind toward the pursuer, and as showing that the defender is a person who is easily aroused to anger and lacking in self-control. It is an unfortunate feature of this case that there is a mutual dislike between the parties. No doubt there have been faults on both sides, whatever the causes were that gave rise to the friction between the parties."

DEFENDER "EASILY ROUSED"

In considering whether or not the slander was uttered it was relevant, the Sheriff states, to review the probabilities of the case. "We start here with a person in the defender who is easily roused. She explains why she has a pretty quick temper. If she sees an injustice done, she has to express her feelings. It is because she has had a hard life. No doubt a person is to commended who attempts in a legitimate way to set right the social evils with which he or she is surrounded, but in deciding whether or not there was a probability on the part of the defender uttering this slander, the factor that she was easily roused must be taken into account.

"Where a person is easily roused, so as to lose control of herself, there is a probability that she may say things in the heat of anger owing to that lack of self-control. Her temper at the material time was aroused. She pleads so. An attack had been made on her honesty. When she came over the Square, she was angry. She spoke first. The words the three men spoke to were words familiar to her, and were on her mind at the time. The thought in her mind was to contrast the pursuer's position with her position. She was not living on charity.

"The position then is that the defender was a person who admits she has a dislike for the pursuer. She resented his being made Provost, and has kept up that resentment for the last three years.

"Finally," states the Sheriff, "I think it right to add that, after full investigation, nothing has been revealed to throw any reflection on the probity or honesty of the pursuer. The defender, let it be said to her credit, admitted that."

 

The Fertile Winds of Greenock

From the Glasgow Herald, October 20, 1936, page 6:

SLANDER ACTION AT GREENOCK

PROVOST SUES LABOUR COUNCILLOR

SHERIFF TAKES CASE TO AVIZANDUM

Evidence was concluded at Greenock Sheriff Court yesterday in the action in which Provost J.W. Bell is suing Councillor Mrs McLeod, a Labour colleague in the Town Council, for £150 damages for alleged slander. Parties' agents afterwards addressed the Court, and Sheriff Macdonald made avizandum.

Pursuer alleges that, following upon a meeting of the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the Corporation at which he raised a question regarding defender's delegation expenses to Southport and London, Mrs McLeod approached three men in Cathcart Square and remarked -- "What do you think of that dirty scum challenging me for a day's delegation expenses? Provost Bell is a man who has been living on charity ever since he went in there; and he has been living off the backs of the workers ever since he came to Greenock."

Defender, in her evidence at a previous sitting of the Court, stated that she never thought that the Provost was using his office for his own private gain, and had never said so. She denied having used the phrases attributed to her.

MRS MCLEOD'S EXPENSES

Mr Archibald Carmichael, Depute Town Chamberlain, gave evidence at the resumed hearing yesterday that he recollected questions arising concerning deputation expenses incurred by Mrs McLeod. He remembered a conversation with her in the second week of July, 1935, when he checked the expenses with her. She explained to him how it happened that the same date appeared twice for different places, and said she had been to Southport and London. She finished at Southport on the 30th of the month and continued to London the same day. The question was fully discussed and Mrs McLeod did not conceal anything. Witness subsequently learned that some questions had been raised concerning the same date appearing twice on her account. He did not consider it a clerical error, as there were special circumstances in that she was attending two conferences, the one following the other. To his way of thinking the account was quite properly stated as first submitted and was quite in order.

In cross-examination witness admitted that the account was subsequently altered, but not by him. He agreed that when the same date appeared in two accounts for different places it might appear to some people to be an error, but it was out-of-pocket expenses on the Southport-to-London journey and the date did not affect it.

FOR PURSUER

Mr H.A. Shewan, advocate, addressing the Court for pursuer, said that Provost Bell was not out to make money in this case. If he were a person who could afford to make a generous gesture he would do so, but it would be grossly unfair to ask him to do anything of the kind. He was not a man of wealth, and even if he got his verdict with expenses, without the damages, that would not pay his out-of-pocket expenses. If the pursuer was successful he was well entitled to an award of damages, and should not be called upon to waive that or any substantial part of it, because if he did he would be actually out of pocket, which would be unfair for a man in his position, who had been unjustifiably brought into court.

There might be a tendency on the part of the public, who had been following the case, and who were waiting the result, to measure the extent of the Provost's success -- if he was successful -- by the amount of damages. That was quite an improper consideration, but if his Lordship did modify the damages to any great extent he hoped it would be made clear that this was not a reflection in any way upon the Provost.

"DISTRESSING AND PAINFUL"

This had been a distressing and painful case to both parties. It had aroused a great deal of interest, and it would affect very seriously the interests of the parties involved. It was agreed by everyone, even the defender herself, that since certain slanderous rumours had been circulating through Greenock about the Provost he had no alternative but to raise proceedings to have them investigated and have them ended once and for all. People who gave their services to the community in any public capacity must expect to face criticism. The Provost never shirked it, and, in fairness to Mrs McLeod, he thought she would not shirk it. The criticism must be fair, and there was all the difference in the world between that and being exposed to what was no more or less than an insult.

If a slander had been proved then it was right that the slanderer be forced to retract publicly. The community would be all the cleaner and healthier for it. He was glad to say that no one suggested there was the slightest foundation of truth in the alleged remarks. Defender herself -- and he wished to do her justice -- was the first to deny them. Whatever might be the decision in this difficult and complex case he trusted that it would be made clear that after a full and careful investigation of the facts nothing whatever had been revealed which would reflect on the character of the Provost. On the whole case he moved for a verdict for the pursuer and with that verdict a substantial award of damages.

IN DEFENCE

Mr Hugh T. MacCalman, agent for Mrs McLeod, asked that defender should be absolved from the conclusions of the action, and pursuer found liable in expenses. He contended that no reliance could be placed on pursuer's evidence, or on that of the three essential witnesses -- Bain, Swan, and Heron -- and he asked his Lordship to hold that the words "living off the backs of the workers" and "scum" had been imported into the Cathcart Street conversation after it had passed through the very fertile winds of Greenock.

He thought that in the course of circulation, these statements had been attached to what Mrs McLeod actually said. His Lordship was aware of the fact that statements repeated from mouth to mouth never came back in the form in which they were given.

The innuendo which pursuer sought to draw from the words alleged to be uttered by Mrs McLeod was that pursuer had descended to what was commonly called "graft." He asked his Lordship, in the light of all the evidence, to consider whether the words could seriously be taken to mean that pursuer had descended to what was called "graft." He thought that the answer was definitely, "No."

Mr MacCalman further submitted that any words used by Mrs McLeod in the Cathcart Square conversation were used in the heat of anger following upon what she considered a bitter and unfounded attack on her character and were not actionable.

The Witness-Box

From the Glasgow Herald, July 31, 1936, page 12:

ACTION BY GREENOCK PROVOST

Woman Councillor's Denials: Collapse During Evidence

The hearing of evidence was resumed in Greenock Sheriff Court yesterday in the action by Provost J.W. Bell against Councillor Mrs Catherine McLeod for £150 damages for alleged slander. The parties are members of the Labour group of Greenock Corporation.

During the day evidence was given by the defender, who stated that she had never employed the words "dirty scum" and had never said that Provost Bell had been living off the backs of the workers.

Near the close of Mrs McLeod's cross-examination she collapsed on to the seat in the witness-box and burst into tears.

Through her sobs she declared that she had never uttered the statements imputed to her, and that she had tried without success to approach the Provost to explain to him that wicked men were trying to do harm to the Labour Party.

The evidence for the defender had not concluded when the Court rose, and the case was continued until October 19.

At the outset of the sitting Bailie Porter, for the pursuer, spoke to meeting Peter Swan, John Bain, and Joseph Heron in Cathcart Square. Swan told him that Mrs McLeod had come out of the Council Chamber and had referred to the Provost as a "dirty scum," and had also said that "he had lived on charity and on the backs of the workers ever since he went into the Council Chambers." Witness told the Provost, and later Bailie Lyall and he made certain endeavours to mediate between the Provost and Mrs McLeod.

MRS MCLEOD IN THE WITNESS-BOX

EXPENSES INCIDENT AT MEETING

This closed the case for pursuer, and evidence was led for the defender. After several witnesses had been heard Mrs McLeod entered the witness-box.

"I have never thought," she said, "that Provost Bell was using his office for his own private gain, and have never said so. I have never said anything implying it or inferring it."

Mrs McLeod went on to state that she had been a member of the Corporation for nearly 10 years, a magistrate for four years, and was at present convener of the Public Health Committee.

Questioned about a Finance Committee meeting on August 20, Mrs McLeod explained that she was late for the meeting. When she went in Mr Rooke, the Town Chamberlain, came over and said to her -- "Your accounts have been questioned, Mrs McLeod." She asked by whom, and the Chamberlain replied -- "You had better ask."

The Provost was speaking about something else at the time, and when he had finished she said -- "I understand my expenses have been questioned." The Provost just waved his hand aside and said -- "See the Chamberlain about it."

Mr McCalman (agent for defender) -- At that stage were you annoyed to think that your expenses had been questioned? -- No. I would not have minded any member questioning my expenses, but I did object to the supposed leader of my group raising the question in public. It would have been an easy matter for the Provost to have spoken about it at a Labour group meeting.

"NOT ALLOWED WORD OF EXPLANATION"

When Mr Rooke told her that her expenses had been questioned, she wanted to explain how the matter arose, because she knew that she was leaving for Portugal on the Friday. The Provost would not allow her a word of explanation.

He said -- "You have charged a day extra." She said that her expenses were out-of-pocket expenses. She only laid down the receipts and said to Mr Rooke -- "I have spent more than you have given me."

Mr McCalman -- It has been suggested, only by the Provost, I think, that you threw the papers in Mr Rooke's face? -- I have known Mr Rooke too long and the officials too well to do anything of the kind. It is quite untrue.

I think at a later date you came back to adjust the matter with Mr Rooke? -- Yes, as I was leaving on Friday for Portugal I said to my husband -- "I had better go down and see the Chamberlain and get this business cleared up." I went down to Mr Rooke's office and said that I wanted to see about the account. Mr Rooke said -- "It is all right. It is just a change of date, and everything is all right. There is really nothing in the matter at all."

Mr Rooke changed the dates on the accounts.

CONVERSATION WITH A WITNESS

Mrs McLeod went on to describe a conversation she had with the witness Swan in Cathcart Square. Swan started to criticise the deputation expenses of certain councillors, and, striking his breast pocket, he said -- "I have got yours in here too. You have a day here you are not entitled to."

She told him she was never afraid of her expenses, because the ratepayers in the First Ward knew her too well to know that she would not do anything wrong. She said to him -- "I am not living on charity. It is a loss to me when I go on deputations, because I have nurses to pay, and I have to leave some one in the house, and it is no gain to me."

It has been said in evidence that you used the phrase "Dirty scum." -- The reason I am defending this action is because I never used that expression in my life.

Or "living off the backs of the workers"? -- I never used that.

LETTER FROM PROVOST

DENIAL OF PHRASE "DIRTY SCUM"

Mrs McLeod said that she got a letter from the Provost referring to the alleged slander when she returned from Portugal. On opening the letter she got a terrible shock when she saw the words "dirty scum." That word was not in her vocabulary.

Mr McCalman -- Did you write any reply? -- No, I got into touch with Mrs MacArthur and Bailie Lyall, and showed them the letter, and asked them what I should do. We decided to telephone the Provost, and Mrs MacArthur and I went to the telephone. I told him that I had received his letter, and that I denied the stalements.

He said that he would see me, and I asked if Mrs MacArthur could come with me. He agreed, but at two o'clock I received a leter from him stating that he had reconsidered his decision, and wanted Mr Campbell (solicitor) to be with him. I said that I would have to get legal advice if he was going to put it in the hands of a lawyer.

Mrs McLeod went on to say that she was at a meeting of a Corporation committee, and told Bailie Lyall about the position, stating that she was going to Glasgow to see a legal freind. He asked her to wait a moment, and he and Bailie Porter left the meeting. They went to see the Provost, but she did not know what took place.

When they came back Bailie Lyall told her that the Provost would accept nothing but a public apology. She told them that there was nothing left for her but to go and see her friend in Glasgow.

ALLEGED TALK WITH SWAN

Mr McCalman -- On the way to the station did you meet some one? -- I met the man Swan, who was on the other side of the street. It was the first I had seen of him since I came home.

At this stage Mrs McLeod produced a sheet of paper on which were some notes purporting to refer to a conversation she had with Swan.

Mr H.A. Shewan, advocate, who appeared for the Provost, objected to the witness reading from them, and Sheriff Macdonald ruled that the witness could only use them to refresh her memory.

Mrs McLeod stated that Swan explained that a week after she left for Portugal he met Bailie Porter and told him some story about her saying that Provost Bell was living on charity. On the next day Provost Bell came down to him and asked him to go to the office of Mr Cameron, the solicitor.

Swan also told her that Bain and Heron had been called in separately, and had given different stories.

"A BIT OF A TEMPER"

Mr Shewan, cross-examining -- You had been on the Town Council as a Labour representative a good many years before ever Provost Bell came on? -- Yes, six years.

When the time came for a Labour Provost to be elected he was appointed although he had been a councillor only for one year? -- Yes.

Did you have any particular feelings about that? -- Yes. I resented it very much. I did not think he was capable of holding the position.

Are you a person, Mrs McLeod, who has a bit of a temper? -- Yes. I am Highland.

After Mrs McLeod had stated that she was not given an opportunity to make an explanation at the Finance Committee meeting, she said -- "In my opinion, the Provost was glad to be able to bring it up."

Mr Shewan -- Is it your opinion that the pursuer made an unfounded attack on your character? -- Yes. He said I had charged a day too much.

Do you regard the Provost's action at that meeting as being, in fact, an accusation of dishonesty? -- Yes, I do.

You were not asked to refund any money? -- No.

PROVOST'S FINANCIAL POSITION

In further cross-examination, Mrs McLeod said that the Provost repeatedly made statements about his financial position, and people were asking how he lived. That was before the present action was raised.

She thought the Provost's wife was mistaken in saying that the statements as to the alleged slander were widely circulated, and she did not believe that stories had reached Mrs Bell through her boy at school.

Evidence for the defender's case was also given by other witnesses.

Slanderous Bailie McLeod

From the Glasgow Herald, July 24, 1936, page 12.

ACTION BY GREENOCK PROVOST

Alleged Slander by Councillor: "Living Off Backs of Workers"

Keen public interest was taken in the proof of an action in Greenock Sheriff Court yesterday involving the Provost of Greenock and another member of the Corporation. Provost J. W. Bell is suing Mrs Catherine McLeod for £150 damages for alleged slander.

The proceedings lasted all day, and pursuer's case was not completed when the Court rose. The proof was adjourned until Thursday, July 30.

The case was heard by Sheriff Macdonald, pursuer being represented by Mr J. G. Shewan, advocate, and defender by Mr Hugh T. McCalman, solicitor, Glasgow.

PURSUER'S EVIDENCE

Provost Bell stated in evidence that he was an electric welder to trade, but had been unemployed since November, 1932, when he was elected to the Town Council. In November, 1933, he was appointed Provost, and had held the position ever since.

He was a member of the Labour Party and chairman of the board of the Co-operative Society in Greenock. He had also been appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to serve on various public bodies, and at the present time he was a member of the Departmental Commission to inquire into representation of poor persons in legal matters.

Defender, Mrs McLeod, had been a member of the Town Council for about nine years and was also a member of the Labour Party.

In reply to Mr Shewan, Provost Bell stated that the relations between himself and defender were "not the very sweetest." After he became Provost, which Mrs McLeod never supported, he found that every opportunity was taken by her to insult and abuse him at private meetings.

QUESTION OF COUNCILLOR'S EXPENSES

After giving details of allowances to Corporation members on deputations pursuer referred to a meeting of the Finance and General Purposes Committee. He produced extracts of two accounts from the minutes in connection with the Public Health Department.

The first read -- "Bailie Mrs McLeod -- Expenses attending a conference at Southport, June 25 to 30, five days, £10"; and the other -- "Bailie Mrs McLeod -- Expenses attending conference at London, June 30 to July 4, five days, £15."

When he found that Mrs McLeod was charging delegation expenses for June 30 at Southport and also for June 30 at London he came to the conclusion, in view of the fact that there had been very keen public controversy about councillors' expenses, that it was his duty to get this put right. All he said at the meeting was -- "There are two items in the Public Health accounts which show that Mrs McLeod has charged for June 30 twice. I am prepared to move that this matter be remitted to the Chamberlain to be put right."

Mrs McLeod arrived at the meeting just after the motion was carried. He explained the position as kindly as any man could, and the Chamberlain walked over to her with the two receipts.

She flung them in his face, and said -- "I have spent the money, and you can do what you like."

Mr Shewan -- Did you, as the defender alleges, make a bitter and unfounded attack on defender's character with reference to this matter? -- Never. I made no attack on her.

"LIVING ON CHARITY"

PROVOST AND "POISONOUS IMPUTATIONS"

Continuing his evidence, Provost Bell said that it came to his ears later that certain slanderous statements concerning him were in circulation.

These alleged that he was a dirty scum, that he had lived off the backs of the workers ever since he came to Greenock, and that he had lived on charity ever since he went in there. He regarded them as poisonous imputations against his character implying that he had been using his position as Provost to get money from irregular sources.

He felt that they would have to be repudiated and withdrawn, as there was absolutely no truth in them.

He intended to challenge Mrs McLeod on whether she had made the statements, but she had left for Portugal, and it was some time before she came back and he could communicate with her. He wrote to her after her return proposing to delay proceedings to allow her to make an apology.

Mr Shewan -- If she had done so, would you have allowed bygones to be bygones? -- Yes.

Mr Shewan -- Had you frequently stated on public platforms that you had lived on the charity of your friends? -- Exactly the opposite. I have stated in public that no person could hold the office of Provost in this town with any dignity or authority while drawing public assistance or benefit from any other source. I have also stated that I am dependent entirely upon my life's savings.

Bailie Porter and Bailie Lyall had tried to mediate between himself and defender because of the fact that Mrs McLeod was a candidate in the last November election. He had no desire to injure her chances, and he told them that he was prepared to accept an apology and to give a guarantee that it would not be published until after the election. In spite of that, no apology had been given.

OFFERED THE M.B.E.

Cross-examined by Mr McCalman, Provost Bell said he did not think there was anything dishonourable in obtaining public relief of any kind.

Referring to a meeting in the First Ward on December 9, 1934, Mr McCalman asked witness if he had then said that he had been offered an M.B.E.

The Provost -- I might have.

Did you say you had refused it? -- Yes.

Who offered you the M.B.E.? -- Sir George Carter, now dead.

Did he give out M.B.E.'s? -- No, he had no authority; but he asked me if I was prepared to accept the honour.

Did you also state that you refused it and suggested that it should be given to the lavatory attendant? -- No.

The Provost explained that he had received the offer because during the war he had been chairman of the Cammell Laird War Relief Fund, which distributed over £53,000 to the dependants of those who had gone to the war from the shipyard.

In answer to a further question, the Provost stated that there was nothing illegal in the claim made by Mrs McLeod in respect of expenses, other than that she duplicated her claim for one particular day.

INCOME FROM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

Questioned regarding his means, Provost Bell said that his money was in co-operative society shares, and his income for the past four years from this investment consisted of dividends on purchases and interest on the amount standing in his name.

He had drawn £420 from these books since he became a councillor in Greenock. He had nothing to hide, and nothing to regret.

His earnings from the co-operative movement during last year amounted to £40, and he was paid £12 a year for being chairman of Greenock Central Co-operative Society.

Mr McCalman -- I suggest that your sole purpose in bringing this action was to intimidate Mrs McLeod and earn some publicity for yourself. -- I could get no more publicity than I am getting as Provost of Greenock.

The Provost's evidence lasted over 2 1/2 hours.

"THAT DIRTY SCUM"

ALLEGED STATEMENT BY DEFENDER

Peter McGregor Swan (57), iron driller, said that on a Thursday towards the end of August, 1935, he was standing at Cathcart Square in company with two other men.

Mrs McLeod came out of the Municipal Buildings, crossed the street, and spoke to them. After referring to another Corporation matter, she said -- "What do you think of that dirty scum challenging me for a day's delegation expenses of 25s?"

Witness asked her to whom she was referring, and she said -- "Provost Bell, a man who has been living on charity ever since he went in there." Witness inferred that she meant the Council Chambers, and that the statement was meant to convey that the Provost was using his position for his own gain.

After further conversation Mrs McLeod said -- "He has been living on charity ever since he came to Greenock," and "He has been living on the backs of the workers since he has come to Greenock."

At a later date witness met Bailie Porter and told him what Mrs McLeod had said, and subsequently, so far as he could remember, he told the Provost the words that had been used.

Witness denied in cross-examination that he had ever stated that he intended to break the Labour group in Greenock Corporation.

Mr McCalman -- Did you consider it just a little bit of gossip when you mentioned the matter to Bailie Porter? -- I may have.

Did you think it just a joke? -- No; I did not consider it a joke.

MRS MCLEOD "READY TO BREAK DOWN"

John Bain (48), iron moulder, who accompanied Swan when defender spoke to them, stated in cross-examination that when Mrs McLeod came over he thought she was pretty hysterical and was just ready to break down.

Joseph Heron (52), labourer, also gave evidence of Mrs McLeod having made the statements complained of.

Mrs Bell, wife of the Provost, said that the words alleged to have been used by Mrs McLeod were widely circulated. Witness had a family of four children, all at school, and her eldest boy had certainly heard of the statements.

Asked what her husband's motives were in bringing the action, Mrs Bell replied that if the slander was not repudiated the children would carry a suspicion on their shoulders throughout their lives that they had been brought up on something they were not entitled to. Her husband brought the action to clear his character.

After evidence had been given by Bailie Harry Lyall as to his part in attempting to mediate between the parties, the court adjourned until Thursday, July 30.

Oh, My Grandmother

From the Glasgow Herald, November 19, 1937, page 9:

GREENOCK SLANDER ACTION ECHO

BANKRUPTCY EXAMINATION OF EX-BAILIE

Ex-Bailie Mrs Catherine McLeod, who was the defendant in a slander action in Greenock Sheriff Court a year ago, and who had decree given against her, was examined in bankruptcy in the court yesterday. Pursuer in the slander action was Mr J. W. Bell, who was then Provost of Greenock, and he was awarded £75 damages and expenses. Mrs McLeod's estate has now been sequestrated, the principal creditor being Mr Bell, whose claim is for £269, being the amount of damages and expenses in the slander action.

In the course of her examination Mrs McLeod stated that she had been engaged in business as a maternity nurse for 16 years. For three years she was convener of the Public Health Committee of Greenock Corporation, and had to drop most of her work. Her total earnings for that period would be about £70. Previously her earnings were fairly high. She would have from 60 to 100 cases a year, and her average fee was 25s, but in some cases she got nothing. Recently she received a presentation of £22, and that money was used to pay some of the expenses of her solicitor and other accounts connected with the litigation. She had no assets. She had had a sum of £5 in the Greenock East End Co-operative Society, which was her qualification as a director, but that money had been arrested.

Mr F Campbell, solicitor, who appeared for the trustee, pointed out that under the Maternity Services (Scotland) Act Mrs McLeod could surrender her midwifery certificate and receive a lump sum grant. If the local authority was prepared to accept the surrender of her certificate and make a grant, was it her intention to surrender the certificate or to continue in practice?

Mrs McLeod replied that she intended to continue in practice.

She had no proposals to make for the liquidation of the sums due by her.

Replying to further questions, Mrs McLeod said that she did not know of any offer being made to liquidate the whole sum outstanding in respect of the decree against her.

The examination was closed.

More on the McLeod-Bell Affair to follow.

Portrait of John W. Bell, Provost of Greenock, 1933-36.

Annie Hamilton

Today (or tomorrow) is Annie Hamilton's birthday. Born March 16, 1866 in tiny Brookfield, Hamilton went on to be the first woman to graduate in medicine in Nova Scotia in 1894. (Dalhousie has an annual scholarship in her name. For about a decade she ran a practice in Halifax's North End before emigrating to China as a medical missionary in 1903 and lived there until her death in Shanghai in 1941. 

I happened on her name somewhere in my background reading about Jean Ewen and the co-incidence of name and birthplace sent me to my files. And, yes, indeed she is a very distant maternal relative (second cousin, fourth remove). Not so distant in time when you realize that she was ten years older than my great grandfather and grew up in the same county.

Not surprisingly there's little online information about her. The Brookfield IODE chapter is named in her honour and notes that she learned Chinese while going to Dal and used to make house call by bicycle.

A little more can be gleaned from Arthur J. Lindsay's Knox Church, Brookfield, Nova Scotia. A History of the Congregation. (1976). You're unlikely to find this in a library close to you but somehow I have two copies (or I did before the great book exodus of 2010), including one once owned by Franklyn Hicks (yes, Henry's brother). Though I'd take Lindsay's account with a grain or two of salt it adds some details to Hamilton's story:

Annie Isabell Hamilton was fourteen when she first became involved in Missionary work in the church. That was in 1880 when she became a collector for the Home and Foreign Missionary Society in Brookfield. As she walked the miles from house to house collecting the nickles and pennies, she may well have dreamed of becoming a Missionary to help the heathen in exotic foreign lands. In any case, she brought in $12.63, which was more than a third of all the money collected for missions in Brookfield that year.

Determined and persuasive.

And some of that determination may have been fostered by what seems to have been a difficult family situation. Her father William "Queer Bill" Hamilton was roughly 62  when he started a second family with roughly 26 year old Mary Irwin McShannick (alternately Muckleshanick) who had been married twice before and brought her eldest child Harriet into the marriage. After having five children with Mary, William "went off to New Brunswick to live, leaving the mother and the five children to manage the farm. This they did as well as they could and when 'Queer Bill' returned home several years later he was too old to farm again. He died soon after, in 1887, when Annie was twenty-one. Her mother died two weeks later." 

There's much left unsaid in that description of a complex family life and migration with William leaving the family sometime in his 70s and returning home to die in his 80s. During his absence Hamilton finished Normal school and worked as a teacher. After her parents' deaths, she helped her siblings finish their educations and maintain the farm until they emigrated to the United States.

At that point, Annie Hamilton put herself through medical school. You can find a bit more about Hamilton's medical career in Enid Johnson MacLeod's Petticoat doctors: the first forty years of women in medicine at Dalhousie. My copy is among the missing feared discarded.

Not much remains in the public record of Hamilton's life but I'm looking forward to exploring further once we're moved the Halifax. I suspect she was a formidable woman.

Heather

Great-Grandparents

Janet, only daughter of Robert McGill, to James Maxwell Tulley, at 17 Mount Pleasant Street, Greenock on 5th January 1892 (Greenock Telegraph 8.1.1892).

Looking More Carefully: Vernon Fisher

Vernon Fisher
Originally uploaded by heyther

One of the blogs I make sure I check every morning is Elizabeth's. I check because I want to read what she has to say and I check because I want to make sure she's still alive.

I started reading it because I liked her novel Zed. I've stuck around because her voice is compelling (though usually NSFW) and she makes me think about what it means for an athlete to move from figuring out how to make it onto the Olympic fencing team without a sponser to figuring out how to live, really live, in a wheelchair with a progressive, terminal, rare, and poorly understood medical condition. 

If you read Elizabeth's stuff you'll learn a lot about goth lolly culture and anime, wheelchair sports (sadly not as egalitarian as you'd expect), despair and cutting, the underbelly of the Canadian health care system, the limitations of home care agencies, disablism, memory loss, rage, and most important, determination.  (If you ask, she'll send you a labour of love and hope: a postcard that takes much effort to put together.)

What's that got to do with the photograph? The man in the wicker wheelchair: that's my great uncle Vernon.  He died the year before I was born. And since my family loves secrets, it was many many years before I learned that he had probably died of ALS and more years before this snapshot came my way. 

When I first got the photograph what I saw was the chair. Now what I see is Vernon: smiling, open, and as mischievous as he was in boyhood photographs. And in an odd, round about way, that is Elizabeth's gift to Vernon: I see him.

Heather