Info 6a Joseph William Hayward, of Auckland and Gisbourne

Info 6a, Joseph William Hayward , plasterer

Following Alfred abandoning Evelyn and child and subsequent adoption of the baby by grandparents, Evelyn was lucky to find love and support with Joseph william Hayward, a plasterer by trade.
Family hearsay is that they met in the Theater ( Opera house?), it is know that Evelyn for a couple of years was part of the Chorus of a Gilbert & Sullivan touring company. Although we do not have the exact chronology for this it seems improbable it was prior to her first child ie. when she was about 17 so more likely it was prior to her 2nd child when she was 23-24

Following Evelyns death in 1913 Joseph Hayward adopted Leslie. This dosnt appear to have involved any legal adoption papers.
Adoption was not formalised till about 1925, Orphaned children were just taken on by any willing relative.

Auckland Star, 18th February 1905
A "CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR." FINED FOR ASSAULT. A married woman named Annie Simms charged a man named O. G. Warwick in the Police Court this morning with assaulting her on Monday night, some curious evidence being given for the prosecution. Mr. J. R. Lundon defended. The complainant stated that on Monday evening the defendant accosted her in Wellesley street while she was with some friends, remarking to a gentleman that he ought to be ashamed of himself to run off with another man's wife. Warwick wanted the gentleman to "have it out" in a back street, suggesting a pugilistic encounter, but this did not come off. The defendant caught her by the arm, pulled her two or three yards, and said, "Come to the police station." He told witness he was a member of the "Criminal Investigation Society," and suggested getting a cab so that they could all drive to the watch-house. Witness refused, and there was a scene, a small crowd collecting. A man in the crowd asked Warwick if he was a policeman. Defendant replied in the negative, and he was then told to go about his business and let witness go about hers. A policeman arrived, and the party went to the police station, where witness charged Warwick with assault. In reply to Mr. Lundon she said she lived apart from her husband. Mrs. Evelyn Glass, who was with the prosecutrix, said Warwick told them he was a paid servant to watch Mrs. Simins. The latter complained that he had followed her for two nights. Joseph Hayward, who was credited by the defendant with the intention of running away with another man's wife, said he did not know the prosecutrix. Warwick asserted that he was paid to look after the woman, and invited witness to fight. Warwick dragged the prosecutrix by the arm for several yards. The assault was admitted, and the Magistrate characterised it as trivial. Warwick, however, had no right to interfere with the woman, and he fined him 10/ with costs.

Auckland Star, 18th February 1905

A "CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR."
FINED FOR ASSAULT.
A married woman named Annie Simms charged a man named O. G. Warwick in the Police Court this morning with assaulting her on Monday night, some curious evidence being given for the prosecution. Mr. J. R. Lundon defended. The complainant stated that on Monday evening the defendant accosted her in Wellesley street while she was with some friends, remarking to a gentleman that he ought to be ashamed of himself to run off with another man's wife. Warwick wanted the gentleman to "have it out" in a back street, suggesting a pugilistic encounter, but this did not come off. The defendant caught her by the arm, pulled her two or three yards, and said, "Come to the police station." He told witness he was a member of the "Criminal Investigation Society," and suggested getting a cab so that they could all drive to the watch-house. Witness refused, and there was a scene, a small crowd collecting. A man in the crowd asked Warwick if he was a policeman. Defendant replied in the negative, and he was then told to go about his business and let witness go about hers. A policeman arrived, and the party went to the police station, where witness charged Warwick with assault. In reply to Mr. Lundon she said she lived apart from her husband.

Mrs. Evelyn Glass, who was with the prosecutrix, said Warwick told them he was a paid servant to watch Mrs. Simins. The latter complained that he had followed her for two nights.

Joseph Hayward, who was credited by the defendant with the intention of running away with another man's wife, said he did not know the prosecutrix. Warwick asserted that he was paid to look after the woman, and invited witness to fight. Warwick dragged the prosecutrix by the arm for several yards. The assault was admitted, and the Magistrate characterised it as trivial. Warwick, however, had no right to interfere with the woman, and he fined him 10/ with costs.

Hastings Standard, 7th February 1907
LOCAL AND GENERAL A plasterer named Joseph Hayward fell off the scaffolding at the Grand Hotel building this morning, on to a concrete floor. Luckily he escaped with a shaking and had to be taken to his home.

Hastings Standard, 21st May 1907
Magistrates Court Joseph Hayward, a plasterer, sued Patrick Gleeon, Clerk of Works for the Napier Brewery Company, for £6 19s 3d boat fare from Auckland and back £3 93 3d, and five days' work at lis £3 10s), amount alleged to be due to plaint under breach of contract. The plaintiff conducted his own ease, and Mr J. Gleeson appeared for the defendant. Plaintiffs case was that he was engaged from Auckland by the sub contractor for work at the Grand Hotel, but Mr Gleeson requiring plasterers he (plaintiff) was handed over to Mr Gleeson. Plaintiff then claimed from the sub-contractor the boat fare from Auckland The case was heard last December, and an arrangement was entered into that if plaintiff would stay with Mr Gleeson for three months, Mr. Gleeson and the sub contractor would each pay half the fare to Auckland at the expiration of that term. When the plastering work was finished plaintiff was offered piece work, but the price named was not satisfactory. He contended that defendant did not fulfil his agreement. Evidence for the plaintiff was given by Messrs G. Ellis and G. F. Roach, J.P.'s, as to the agreement entered into between Mr Gleeson and plaintiff, when the case of Hayward v the subcontractor was heard in December last. George O'Kane deposed that Mr. Gleeson had told the plasterers and labourers that there was no more work for them. The defendant deposed that Hayward's employrs were the Napier Brewery Company. Witness explained the agreement entered into between Hayward and him, plaintiff agreeing to work until the completion of the building. Owing to material not arriving, witness told plaintiff that he would have to stand down. Witness oflered him a contract upstairs, but as plaintiff's measurements differed with ~~~~~~~ Mr. J. Gleeson raised a point for nonsuit. The Grand Hotel was the property of the company and defendant was clerk of works. The proper body to sue was the Brewery Company. His Worship disagreed. Plaintiff did not know that he was under the employ of anybody but the defedant. The actual legal position was in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant agreed to employ the plaintiff for three months, and defendant broke the agreement. Plantiff was undoubtedly entitled to travelling expenses. Plaintiff was also entitled to damages for breach of contract. Judgment was riven for plaintiff for the amount claimed, £6 19s 3d, with costs £2 16s

Hastings Standard, 21st May 1907

Magistrates Court
Joseph Hayward, a plasterer, sued Patrick Gleeon, Clerk of Works for the Napier Brewery Company, for £6 19s 3d boat fare from Auckland and back £3 93 3d, and five days' work at lis £3 10s), amount alleged to be due to plaint under breach of contract. The plaintiff conducted his own ease, and Mr J. Gleeson appeared for the defendant. Plaintiffs case was that he was engaged from Auckland by the sub contractor for work at the Grand Hotel, but Mr Gleeson requiring plasterers he (plaintiff) was handed over to Mr Gleeson. Plaintiff then claimed from the sub-contractor the boat fare from Auckland
The case was heard last December, and an arrangement was entered into that if plaintiff would stay with Mr Gleeson for three months, Mr. Gleeson and the sub contractor would each pay half the fare to Auckland at the expiration of that term. When the plastering work was finished plaintiff was offered piece work, but the price named was not satisfactory. He contended that defendant did not fulfil his agreement.
Evidence for the plaintiff was given by Messrs G. Ellis and G. F. Roach, J.P.'s, as to the agreement entered into between Mr Gleeson and plaintiff, when the case of Hayward v the subcontractor was heard in December last. George O'Kane deposed that Mr. Gleeson had told the plasterers and labourers that there was no more work for them. The defendant deposed that Hayward's employrs were the Napier Brewery Company. Witness explained the agreement entered into between Hayward and him, plaintiff agreeing to work until the completion of the building. Owing to material not arriving, witness told plaintiff that he would have to stand down. Witness oflered him a contract upstairs, but as plaintiff's measurements differed with ~~~~~~~

Mr. J. Gleeson raised a point for nonsuit. The Grand Hotel was the property of the company and defendant was clerk of works. The proper body to sue was the Brewery Company.
His Worship disagreed. Plaintiff did not know that he was under the employ of anybody but the defedant. The actual legal position was in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant agreed to employ the plaintiff for three months, and defendant broke the agreement. Plantiff was undoubtedly entitled to travelling expenses. Plaintiff was also entitled to damages for breach of contract.
Judgment was riven for plaintiff for the amount claimed, £6 19s 3d, with costs £2 16s

1911 voters, auckland East
Evelyn annie Hayward, 19 Grundy Street, married

Wises Directory 1912 and 1913
Jos. HAYWARD, plstr, 19 Gundry Street, Auckland. 
Gundry Street is off Karangahape Rd.

1916 Jos. HAYWARD, plstr, was at 18 Wellington St. Auckland.

about 1918 they moved to Gisborne

1919 to 1927 Electoral Rolls of Gisborne 
Joseph William  HAYWARD,
plasterer at 206 Childers Road, Gisborne.

Evening Post, 4th September 1909
A difference between two artisans was ventilated in the S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M. Willian Harness charged Joseph Hayward with having assaulted him on Tuesday last. The former is a plasterer, and his alleged . assailant a painter. It was stated that while Hayward was using a paint brush within a certain building, he was also taunting, through an open window, Hayward, who was plastering without. He wanted to know how the latter got his job. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Informant, he said, struck him, and he only acted in self-defence. In convicting accused, the Magistrate said he did not consider the assault a serious one. A fine of 10s, with costa 19s 6d, was imposed. Mr. Weston was for informant, and Mr, Herdman for defendant

Evening Post, 4th September 1909

A difference between two artisans was ventilated in the S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.
Willian Harness charged Joseph Hayward with having assaulted him on Tuesday last. The former is a plasterer, and his alleged . assailant a painter. It was stated that while Hayward was using a paint brush within a certain building, he was also taunting, through an open window, Hayward, who was plastering without. He wanted to know how the latter got his job. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Informant, he said, struck him, and he only acted in self-defence.
In convicting accused, the Magistrate said he did not consider the assault a serious one.
A fine of 10s, with costa 19s 6d, was imposed.
Mr. Weston was for informant, and Mr, Herdman for defendant

New Zealand time, 9th September 1909
MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8th A CASE OF ASSAULT. "William Harness (Mr Herdman) pleaded not guilty to a charge of assaulting Joseph Hayward (Mr Weston). Hayward's story was that he and the defendant had been employed on the same job, the complainant being a plasterer on the outside of the building, and the defendant working inside. Harness and his brother kept taunting the complainant with having given money to, the foreman to get his job. Hayward beoame annoyed, and told the defendant, with some force, to mind his own business. The defendant then came out through tho window on to the scaffold, and assaulted the defendant. The defendant's version was that Hayward had attempted to assault him, and that he had struck a blow, in self-defence. His Worship convicted the defeadant, and fined him 10s, with costs. 19s Od, in default forty-eight hours imprisonment.

New Zealand time, 9th September 1909

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8th A CASE OF ASSAULT.
"William Harness (Mr Herdman) pleaded not guilty to a charge of assaulting Joseph Hayward (Mr Weston). Hayward's story was that he and the defendant had been employed on the same job, the complainant being a plasterer on the outside of the building, and the defendant working inside.
Harness and his brother kept taunting the complainant with having given money to, the foreman to get his job.
Hayward beoame annoyed, and told the defendant, with some force, to mind his own business. The defendant then came out through tho window on to the scaffold, and assaulted the defendant. The defendant's version was that Hayward had attempted to assault him, and that he had struck a blow, in self-defence.
His Worship convicted the defeadant, and fined him 10s, with costs. 19s Od, in default forty-eight hours imprisonment.

Dominion 6th May 1910
Magistrates Court THE UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was entered for plaintiff by default of defendant in the following civil cases:- Wellington Plasterers' Industrial Union of Workers v. Joseph Hayward, 19s., costs 5s.;

Poverty Bay Herald, 12th December 1919
Dominion. At the Police Court this morning., before Mr J. S., Barton, S.M., Charles lidward Watson (Mr J. Wauchop) pleaded guilty to a charge of assaulting Joseph Hayward at Gisborne on November 22. Mr W T auchop said defendant waa over 60 years of age, and had hit complainant because he had made disparaging remarks about old men. and their capacity to work. Sergt. Clarkson .said .only one blow had been struck, and the facts were as stated by Mr Wauchop. His Worship regarded the crime as not a serious one and many blows had been struck under similar circumstances. Nevertheless- a man must not take the -law into his own- hands. A fine of 10s. with 13s costs, was imposed.

Poverty Bay Herald, 12th December 1919

Dominion.
At the Police Court this morning., before Mr J. S., Barton, S.M., Charles lidward Watson (Mr J. Wauchop) pleaded guilty to a charge of assaulting Joseph Hayward at Gisborne on November 22. Mr W T auchop said defendant waa over 60 years of age, and had hit complainant because he had made disparaging remarks about old men. and their capacity to work. Sergt. Clarkson .said .only one blow had been struck, and the facts were as stated by Mr Wauchop. His Worship regarded the crime as not a serious one and many blows had been struck under similar circumstances. Nevertheless- a man must not take the -law into his own- hands. A fine of 10s. with 13s costs, was imposed.

Poverty Bay Herald, 15th September 1921
CLAIM OVER CONTRACT The Magistrate was to-day engaged for some time in the hearing of the case of Joseph Hayward (Mr Wipichop) v. Frederick Powell (Mr Burnard), a claim in respect of tho balance due on a contract for concrete paths, carried out by plaintiff for defendant. Defendant had paid the sum of £25 on the contract, but had refused to pay more, on the grounds that the contract was not carried out in a proper manner. Plaintiff contended that and defects were due to the alterations and additions to the contract made by the plaintiff, and the condition of the foundation before the job was commenced. Robt. Robb also gave evidence in support of the plaintiff. Leslie Hayward, son of the plaintiff, who worked with him on the contract, said that they started laying the concrete the first day he was on the job. In connection with the drive he was on the job. He had heard his father tell him it would not be strong enough because there was not a strong foundation. His father made it clear to defendant that, it would sink. They were allowed half a ton of cement for part they had to lay again. He was quite sure he heard Mr Powell say that he would provide the half-ton of cement. Mr Powell had made a pencil mark right round the house where the path was to he made. By Mr Burnard : He remembered his father saving that he was making nothing on the job. Mr Burnard said that the contract was no different to any other contract. The storv told by the plaintiff was a most impossible one. The way the plaintiff presented his case would seem that when he started the work was all right. Evidence would he called for the defence that it was quite out of keeping with the usual carrying out of concrete work. When it was clear that the plaintiff could not make the job properly the defendant requested him to leave. The evidence would show that his work was unsatisfactory. The position was that there was a contract and it had not been performed ; therefore the defendant, was entitled to judgment. To make a suceess of the job it would all have to he dug up again. James Greig, architect, stated that he inspected the work this week. He would not pass the job. Witness deposed to the state of the paths. He thought that the scheme of drainage adopted was very bad. The defects could not he fixed unless the job was picked up. By Mr Wauchop : He would recommend lifting the drain and putting another two inches on the top of the present concrete. He did not think plaintiff was right in going on with the job; even when the defendant had told him to go on. Then the only alternative Hayward had was not to go on. He (witness) had not had any experience of the plaintiff. It was an easy section to drain, but would require filling up. He should not be inclined to pay anything till the work was properly done. It was an eyesore now. He was probably an hour examining it. Tho concrete was solid enough, but it had not been put down properly. By Mr Burnaid : On the drive the hollows were in the centre of the blocks. William Wallace Stewart, drainage inspector under the Gisborne Borough Council, deposed that he had inspected the work. He had spoken to plaintiff about the way he was draining and the latter thought it was all right. He informed plaintiff that-it was contrary to all by-laws. To alter the draining would necessitate an altering of the grading. He had inspected the work this week, and it was not satisfactory. The outlet of the drain was two inches below tho level of the concrete water channel of the street. He did not know on whose suggestion the plaintiff was draining into the gully trap. The hole cut by the plaintiff into the gully had not been repaired. Wm. Henry Griffon, plasterer, deposed that he had laid down dozens of concrete paths. He had made a casual inspection. It was not exactly a first-class job. He did not inspect the drainage, because he did not know much about it. It was not as rough as he expected to find. By Mr. Wauchop : It was of no value now. The motor drive might be done in summer time. Bv Mr Burnard : Mr. Hayward had been doing very little concrete work for him. . Arnold W. John Mann, chemist, stated that some four years ago plaintiff did some concreting of paths for him, and he had not made a satisfactory job. Since this had happened he had taken special notice of concrete work. —By Mr Wauchop: He had not seen the present job. Fred. Powell, painter, the defendant, deposed how he came to employ the plaintiff on the job. He told him he did not want a cheap job, and asked for two separate prices for both paths. He told Hayward to take his levels from the front footpath. He did not in any way interfere with the levels, of which he knew nothing. Hayward told him afterwards of the draining. He left the work to Mr. Hayward's discretion. Witness related the incidents with plaintiff in connection with the laying down of the paths. The children used to bring their boats to sail in the water in the holes on the path. (Proceeding.)

Poverty Bay Herald, 15th September 1921

CLAIM OVER CONTRACT
The Magistrate was to-day engaged for some time in the hearing of the case of Joseph Hayward (Mr Wipichop) v. Frederick Powell (Mr Burnard),
a claim in respect of tho balance due on a contract for concrete paths, carried out by plaintiff for defendant. Defendant had paid the sum of £25 on the contract, but had refused to pay more, on the grounds that the contract was not carried out in a proper manner. Plaintiff contended that and defects were due to the alterations and additions to the contract made by the plaintiff, and the condition of the foundation before the job was commenced. Robt. Robb also gave evidence in support of the plaintiff.
Leslie Hayward, son of the plaintiff, who worked with him on the contract, said that they started laying the concrete the first day he was on the job. In connection with the drive he was on the job. He had heard his father tell him it would not be strong enough because there was not a strong foundation.
His father made it clear to defendant that, it would sink. They were allowed half a ton of cement for part they had to lay again. He was quite sure he heard Mr Powell say that he would provide the half-ton of cement.
Mr Powell had made a pencil mark right round the house where the path was to he made.
By Mr Burnard : He remembered his father saving that he was making nothing on the job. Mr Burnard said that the contract was no different to any other contract. The storv told by the plaintiff was a most impossible one. The way the plaintiff presented his case would seem that when he started the work was all right. Evidence would he called for the defence that it was quite out of keeping with the usual carrying out of concrete work. When it was clear that the plaintiff could not make the job properly the defendant requested him to leave.
The evidence would show that his work was unsatisfactory. The position was that there was a contract and it had not been performed ; therefore the defendant, was entitled to judgment.
To make a suceess of the job it would all have to he dug up again.
James Greig, architect, stated that he inspected the work this week. He would not pass the job.
Witness deposed to the state of the paths. He thought that the scheme of drainage adopted was very bad. The defects could not he fixed unless the job was picked up. By Mr Wauchop : He would recommend lifting the drain and putting another two inches on the top of the present concrete. He did not think plaintiff was right in going on with the job; even when the defendant had told him to go on. Then the only alternative Hayward had was not to go on.
He (witness) had not had any experience of the plaintiff. It was an easy section to drain, but would require filling up. He should not be inclined to pay anything till the work was properly done. It was an eyesore now. He was probably an hour examining it. Tho concrete was solid enough, but it had not been put down properly.
By Mr Burnaid : On the drive the hollows were in the centre of the blocks.
William Wallace Stewart, drainage inspector under the Gisborne Borough Council, deposed that he had inspected the work. He had spoken to plaintiff about the way he was draining and the latter thought it was all right. He informed plaintiff that-it was contrary to all by-laws.
To alter the draining would necessitate an altering of the grading. He had inspected the work this week, and it was not satisfactory. The outlet of the drain was two inches below tho level of the concrete water channel of the street.
He did not know on whose suggestion the plaintiff was draining into the gully trap. The hole cut by the plaintiff into the gully had not been repaired.
Wm. Henry Griffon, plasterer, deposed that he had laid down dozens of concrete paths. He had made a casual inspection. It was not exactly a first-class job. He did not inspect the drainage, because he did not know much about it. It was not as rough as he expected to find.
By Mr. Wauchop : It was of no value now. The motor drive might be done in summer time.
Bv Mr Burnard : Mr. Hayward had been doing very little concrete work for him. . Arnold W. John Mann, chemist, stated that some four years ago plaintiff did some concreting of paths for him, and he had not made a satisfactory job.
Since this had happened he had taken special notice of concrete work.
—By Mr Wauchop: He had not seen the present job. Fred. Powell, painter, the defendant, deposed how he came to employ the plaintiff on the job.
He told him he did not want a cheap job, and asked for two separate prices for both paths. He told Hayward to take his levels from the front footpath. He did not in any way interfere with the levels, of which he knew nothing. Hayward told him afterwards of the draining. He left the work to Mr. Hayward's discretion.
Witness related the incidents with plaintiff in connection with the laying down of the paths.
The children used to bring their boats to sail in the water in the holes on the path. (Proceeding.)

RIP

Name:           Joseph Wm Hayward, Born about 1863
Event Type:     Burial
Event Date:     29 Oct 1928
Event Place:    Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Age:   65
Death Date:     26 Oct 1928
Cemetery:       Waikumete Cemetery
Cemetery:       Wesleyan burials
Certificate Number:  D
Entry Number:        5

Coroners Inquests - Case Files - Auckland - Hayward, Joseph William [Use copy MICRO U 5540] (R23714480) 	1928 - 1928
Item ID     Agency    Series    Accession   Record group   Box / Item 	Sep 	Record no.   Part   Alternative no.  Record type
R23714480   ACGS      16231 		     J46 	   822 /                COR1928/1284                         Text

SOURCE: https://www.archway.archives.govt.nz/