Sayman Saga DRAFT - 1892+

“Lulu Sayman, a son of Aaron Sayman, of James street north, was charged with assaulting a small boy named Walter Dunnett. The complainant swore that Sayman knocked him down and kicked him. The defendant did not appear and the Magistrate fined him $10.”

Hamilton Times.    September 22, 1892.

Yet again, the surname Sayman came up in the list of names entered into the Police Court Record book.

Both Aaron Sayman and his father were well-known figures in Hamilton in 1892. The father operate an antique and curio, shop on James street north. He was a German Jew who had become a familiar figure in the city ever since his arrival. There were a few young sons in the family but it was one in particular who stood out.

Alexear , aka Lulu, Sayman, was a flamboyant figure, who wore his hair very long and wavy. He was a young man who, in the parlance of the day, was a little off. Challenged in many ways, Lulu was loud, and was capable of outbursts such as happened with Walter Dunnet.

Lulu had not appeared when the charge against him for assaulting Walter was called. In his absence a hefty fine was in place, when Lulu hurried into the police court room, He hotly denied the charge against, so Magistrate Jelfs decided to withdraw the guilty verdict, and hear the case again the following day.

Both Lulu and Walter presented their versions of the incident, as  witnesses testified:,

 “The case against Lulu Sayman , charged with assaulting another boy named Dunnett, was reopened. Several boys swore to seeing Sayman knock Dunnett down on James street north, and kick him in the leg. Notwithstanding the defendant’s indignant denial of the charge, the Magistrate found him guilty and fined him $2.”

Hamilton Times. September 23, 1892

Just over a week later, the Saymans were back in Police Court:

 “The Magistrate’s attention was occupied for some time at the Police Court by the investigation of a charge of larceny against a youth named Louis Frank by Aaron Sayman, a curio dealer on James street north. Mr. W.L. Ross appeared for the private prosecutor. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. The complainant alleged that on Sunday last, the lad called at his place on James street in company with an elderly gentleman named Old man, who had some stones to sell. While Sayman conversed with the latter, young Frank amused himself by handling a number of coins and other curiosities around the store. On Monday morning when Sayman went to put some of his stock in a front window, he missed three old coins, $2 in money and a silver watch and chain, which he believed had been stolen by the prisoner.

“Eleazer Sayman, son of the complainant, has been shorn of his flowing locks, and when he went into the witness’ stand, the Magistrate did not recognize him as the defendant in an assault case of a few weeks ago. He saw Frank handling several coins, and saw him take down a purse in which the missing coins were, and after fumbling with it for a few minutes put it back again.

“Mrs. Sayman Corroborated her boy’s evidence, and stated that young Frank was always fooling around the showcases in which curios were kept.”

“Religion Cut No Figure”

Hamilton Times.    October 01, 1892.

The case against the young boy Louis Frank was postponed until the following Monday. It was Saturday when the that particular Police Court session so the postponement meant that Louis would miss the Jewish that day, but also would have to remain in custody for two more days:

“Two friends of Frank’s father, named Morris and Levy, appearing in the prisoner’s behalf, and endeavored to have him liberated on bail, until Monday, to which date the case was adjourned at their request.

“ ‘I’ll put up $100 security,’ said Levy for the boy’s appearance. We want him out to attend church, because this one of our feast days.’ Several other bondsmen were forthcoming but the Magistrate refused to grant the request. Levy was wroth at this, saying, ‘Sayman is an Israelite, and so are we, and he had no business having him arrested on a day like this, when he should have been free to attend service.’ ”

“Religion Cut No Figure”

Hamilton Times.    October 01, 1892.

The Monday October 3 1892 promised to be an interesting one and it attracted a lot of backbenchers desirous of seeing how the Louis Frank case played out

There was some confusion at the start of the session regarding how the case would proceed. Louis Frank had the choice whether the case would be handled, by the Police Magistrate or the County Court Judge:

“When the adjourned case against Louis Frank, the youth charged with stealing valuable coins from Aaron Sayman was called at the Police Court this morning. Mr. Kirwan appeared for the defense, and at his request the prisoner was committed for trial before the County Judge, the Magistrate allowing young Frank to re-elect as to the manner of his trial. Mr. Martin will apply to Judge Muir today for the release of his client on bail.

“Sayman was opposed to having Frank committed for trial, and told the Magistrate had been convicted twice before of larceny.

“Emile Wolfe – How many times has Mrs. Sayman been arrested?

“There was no reply to this, but Sayman continued talking to the Magistrate. ‘You see my family don’t belong to the Israelites’ society here,’ said he, ‘and consequently they are all against me in the matter.’

Frank and his lawyer were determined that their interests would be better served by the County Judge, so the case, despite Aaron Sayman’s objection, was postponed another day, and Louis was taken back to the cells.

There was a goodly number of people anxious to see what would happen with the case against Louis and the court room presented an animated scene :

“The whole Hebrew section of the community seems to be torn up about the loss of Aaron Sayman’s shekel. The high court room looked like a synagogue this morning. A small boy named Lois Frank, son of Solomon Frank was on trial for larceny, and all the friends and relatives of the parties concerned were present ”

Hamilton Spectator.    October 05, 1892.

On Tuesday, October 4, 1892, the court proceedings were somewhat late beginning due to the nonappearance of the complainants:

“The Crown Attorney, John Crerar, Q.C., was at the court bright and early, ready to proceed with the case. After some fidgeting, the Crown Attorney consulted with Police Chief McKinnon, and in a few minutes the patrol wagon was thundering up James Street to bring the Sayman family to court:

When they did make their appearance, ‘Eleazer, or Lulu, the peculiar son of the old man, wandered up to the Bench on which Judge Muir presided and insisted on holding a confidential chat with him despite his Honor’s good-natured efforts to wave him away. Lulu’s intimate conversation with Judge Muir was cut short when Lulu was led from the court room to await his turn to testify.’

Aaron Sayman was the first to testify :

Aaron Sayman swore that Louis Frank came to his shop on Sunday, September 25 and he was ‘peddling fly paper ‘vat ketches flies.’¹ While in the store, Louis Frank began to handle some of the objects which were on display and was told by Sayman ‘not to handle mit hes hands but to handle mit hes eyes.’¹ The boy was also seen to be near a purse from which a Prussian dollar, a ten-cent piece and a Hebrew shekel were removed.

The defense counsel for Louis Franks was Mr. Richard Martin who, in cross-examining Aaron Sayman, tried to prove that he had ‘grudge against the Orthodox of his faith because the synagogue had refused to let him have a burying lot.’¹

Aaron Sayman emphatically denied this, saying ‘I don’t belong to no synagogue. I belong to God. I worship God.’ After a lengthy cross-examination the counsel for the defense, the old man was allowed to sit down.”

Mrs. Sayman was the next to testify, and she corroborated his husband’s testimony:

“When Mrs. Sayman was cross-examined as to what the shekel was, she, like her husband, very excited. Mrs. Sayman couldn’t remember at first what the coin was like, and Aaron covertly began to make signs on the floor with his walking stick,”

Aaron Sayman’s behavior, while his wife was testifying, got so unruly, a police constable was finally asked to remove the old man from the court room:

“ ‘I don’t think it was a fair trial,’ he cried as he was taken out.”

The final member of the Sayman family present was next up, and he acted in a most peculiar manner:

“Lulu has an artless way, which is a pleasure to contemplate, and he lounged around the witness box with the greatest unconcern, occasionally throwing his leg over the railing”¹

Lulu’s usual appearance was somewhat disheveled with ‘a hay rack head of hair, (which) resembled that of a festive inhabitant of the Soudan.’ However, on the day of the trial against Louis Frank, Lulu Sayman ‘had been metamorphosed into a young man of the period. His hair had been cut and he wore a boiled shirt, sky blue tie and a hand-me-down suit of clothes.’¹

Lulu’s testimony supported his father’s earlier version of the events of September 25 within his father’s shop. Despite defense lawyer Martin’s best efforts, Lulu would not be diverted from his initial version of the matter.”

At this point, Judge Muir had enough and brought proceedings to an abrupt conclusion. The case against young Louis Frank was weak the judge ruled, and the prisoner would be released from custody immediately.