Hazel Jean Hayward Wessman: A Biography, Part 2

Jean taught her son Keith through her attitude that a mother should be able to rely on her sons for support and help. Not just monetary support but emotional support too. John was her shining star in this area when they moved to Salt Lake. He was the one who made sure the house got fixed up and things like that. He was the organizer. Keith remembers cleaning a lot of wallpaper under John's command so that the household would run smoother for Jean.

After his father died, Keith (even though he was six) felt as if he had to grow up. He wanted to do things that would bring his mother comfort. He did not want to give her anything to worry about. He knew that she was counting on him to do what he should.

Jean enjoyed going out with her husband. At times, when her husband got off work early in the morning (from his night job), he would take her out for breakfast before the kids got up. That was a benefit of having a large family. There was always someone to pitch in if necessary to help with the daily events. Jean usually got up early so she could accomplish all that needed to be done.

Henry and Jean would go out with their friends or go out to dinner by themselves. The older kids would take care of the younger children. They made many good friends with Henry's coworkers from the newspapers. They would often socialize with them.

Henry had a good sense of humor. He loved to tell his wife jokes because she would not get them at first. Awhile would go by and then she would start to laugh. Henry thought this was cute and funny.

Jean and Henry liked to go out with Joe and Anna Wessman (Henry’s brother and sister-in-law). They would like to play cards. They had a lot of association with Henry's siblings.

Henry and his brother Joe had certain opinions about hair. They liked long, straight hair. Joe's wife Anna and Jean decided to have their hair cut one day. Their spouses were quite upset when they saw the new hairdos. Jean loved her haircut though. However, Jean did bring home her hair in one braided piece.

Jean did have struggles. One of her children was born stillborn. She never talked about it. Could it be that it was too emotional for her? She was sick after the childbirth. She kept things in and never talked about herself much. She bore 14 other children. It was very challenging raising that many children. Especially after her husband died. When he died, the older children gathered around to help make ends meet. She had a serious heart condition so she could not go out and work.

Jean was sick for four or five years after she had Keith. Her daughters Jean and Betty (also called Liz) had to take care of him. After that bout, she started to improve somewhat. She struggled with how much money was coming into the home. Especially since the jobs that the children had didn't go on forever... Different jobs were sought after at different times depending on the circumstances and the job availability.

Jean (center) with family members.

Merle was her daughter who was born with [neonatal hypothyroidism (cretinism), a condition which is very treatable today]. She was named after Jean's sister who had died. She required a lot of attention. When she was first born, Jean had a lot of pressure and ridicule from the outside to put Merle in American Fork, Utah where the handicapped lived. At that time, the handicapped did not receive the skills and training that they do now. She said "No way! She is my baby." Merle was a very happy but simple person with the mentality of a six or seven year old. She was treated like the rest of the family so when she died, it was a loss. Merle could do many things around the house such as iron, sweep, dishes, make beds, etc. Jean would help watch her daughter Jean's children (JoAnn, Elaine and John Shirts) while she worked and Merle would help her. She did a beautiful job. This was at 184 E. Street. They all lived together in the same house. Jean, her husband Joe Shirts and their family lived upstairs while her mother Jean lived downstairs. All Merle's brothers and sisters would work with her in different areas. She eventually was able to write her name like a first grader.

There were no hard feelings about Merle and her handicap even though the children knew it was a hard situation. Whenever the extended family met with Jean's family, Merle was always given hugs and kisses and accepted as the other family members.

To be continued...

The photos are from my mother's collection.

Hazel Jean Hayward Wessman, A Biography, Part 1

Hazel Jean Hayward Wessman did not like being called Hazel. As a result, she was called Jean. When she was growing up, she came from a large family but due to disease and illness such as diphtheria, only three children lived. Fortunately, she did not come down with any of it. There were never more than four living at the same time and it was the youngest children who reached adulthood, namely, Hazel Jean Hayward Wessman, Elizabeth (Bess) Cripps Hayward Edwards, and John Ewing Hayward.

Jean Hayward

Bess Hayward

John Hayward

Some have said that the reason Jean was dignified, cultured and a righteous young lady was the influence of the home where she was raised. She was a little taller or about the same height (5'7" - 5'8") as her husband. In her younger years, she had dark hair that she used to wear in a bun. Her eyes were a dark hazel color. She had a full figure but not really heavy. Jean was an easygoing person and never seemed to have a temper. She was quite the gentle, sweet and sensitive woman. She had the ability to love everyone the same. However, her feelings would get hurt easy if she were ever slighted. But she would never say anything. In her later years, she seemed to draw into herself. She was even quieter than she had been throughout her life.

The 1900 census showing Henry and Elizabeth Hayward with children Jean, Leah Merle, Elizabeth, and John Ewing. They were living at 341 West Fourth North (R.3) in Salt Lake City. Also living in their home was 20-year-old niece Elizabeth Hayward from Idaho. Other homes at 341 West Fourth North include Jean's grandparents Philip and Martha Pugsley (R.1), and her aunt and uncle Adelbert and Adelaide Pugsley Beesley (R.2).

Some may suspect that Jean and her husband, Henry Richard Emanuel Wessman, a Swedish immigrant, met at a church function but no one knows for sure. They went together for quite a while. Jean's parents didn't think it was a good idea for her to get interested in a guy so they thought sending her away to Germany to study music would help solve that problem. However, it did not make them forget each other for the time that she was gone. They married sometime after she returned to America.

Jean loved being in Germany. When Jean came back, she was quite the good pianist. She could read music and play about anything but she could not play by ear. She had to have music to play. She associated with many friends and with the missionaries over there. She wrote to someone in her family quite often while she was away. It was usually on postcards with pictures of where she had been or things she had seen.

The Jean Hayward postcard collection can be found here.

Jean spent three months with her father, Henry Hayward, and sister Elizabeth (Bess) traveling in Europe in 1908. Her father and Bess went over to Berlin to pick up Jean who had been studying music there for a year. They traveled to places such as Holland, Switzerland, France and England. Then they sailed home. At one point in their European travels, they were checking into a hotel during a mighty rainstorm. The clerk asked if they wanted the American plan or the European (you’re a peein!) (meaning that breakfast came with the lodging). Henry Hayward with his sly sense of humor told the clerk, "It's just the rain dripping off of my umbrella." Henry kept a straight face until the clerk started to laugh. Jean and Bess were embarrassed. This was just one example of his sense of humor. He was quite the tease.

Jean’s husband adored her. They were a close couple. There was always a sparkle of romance in their eyes for each other. Jean liked it when Henry would bring her little special things. He would bring things like seafood dishes, desserts and nippy cheeses. Of course, these were some of the things that he liked but he wanted to share with this spouse.

 Henry and Jean Hayward Wessman

Henry took very good care of Hazel. Her father also took good care of her while growing up. Therefore, she always was taken care of. Henry taught his sons mainly through example that they should reverence womanhood. He did this in many ways. For example, when Jean was sick, had a baby or anything like that, a woman would come into the home and help out. Many times, it was a strain on the budget, but he felt that it was important for his wife to have that help. He would also make breakfast and the lunches for the kids. This was a great support to her.

Henry believed that cleaning the woodwork in the home was not woman's work. Therefore, he had his sons do that type of chore so his wife and daughters didn't have to do it.

To be continued...

[This history is by Toni Wyeth from interviews with family members. The photos of the Hayward children were sent by cousin Emily, the image of the postcard was sent by Toni and the photo of Henry and Jean is from my mother's collection.]

Hazel Jean Hayward Wessman, A Biography

I am going to interrupt the information about the Pugsley will and the rather curious circumstances surrounding it to post a history sent by Wessman cousin Toni Wyeth. 

Toni reports that about fifteen years ago, during a time of great personal demands, Norinne and Beverly encouraged her to do some family history work, and she felt that she should collect stories about the Jean and Henry Wessman family from the children and grandchildren in that family. Toni had a wonderful experience getting to know family members, and she has been kind enough to share her work and the stories and memories of their lives with all of us. I was so touched to read this biography, because I started out with so few materials about Jean and Henry. Three pages to be exact.

The biography is very easy to read and includes so much interesting information about the family that it is easy to read in one sitting. But I will post it over the next week or so in blog-sized bits, starting tomorrow morning.

Many thanks to Toni, and also to the Wessman children and grandchildren who shared the information and memories to make this project possible.

Philip Pugsley Will and Probate, Executors

A petition was filed in the district court yesterday by the executors of the estate of the late Philip Pugsley, asking that his will be filed for probate. The executors are Ezra Thompson, J. E. F. Pugsley and J. S. Barlow. The estate is valued at about $35,576.31. (The Salt Lake Herald, Thursday, August 20, 1903, p 3, "Court Notes.")

—

Some Definitions

Philip Pugsley, the testator (a person who has written a will), died testate, which means that he died leaving a will. If he had not left a will, he would have died intestate, or without a will.

An executor to a will is a person who carries out the provisions of the will. A will may name one or more executors.

When a will is probated, it is presented in court. The court determines the validity of the will and appoints the executor(s). Probate administration involves resolving all claims to property, including paying all debts, and distributing the property to the heirs.

—

The Executors of the Pugsley Estate

Ezra Thompson was the husband of Philip and Martha Pugsley's third child and second daughter, Emily Pugsley. He was born July 17, 1850 in Salt Lake City. He served as mayor of Salt Lake City from 1900 to 1904 and from 1906 to 1907. He was a Republican, unlike his sister-in-law Elizabeth Pugsley Hayward and her husband Henry, who were prominent members of the Democratic Party. He helped found the anti-Mormon American Party. He was known as a successful businessman and progressive politician, but he resigned from his second term in 1907, citing reasons of health, amidst allegations of corruption and bribery among his appointees. Ezra and Emily lived purchased one of the Pugsley homes from the estate in 1903. They may already have been living in the home. They later moved to a home on South Temple. Ezra died in 1923.

Joseph Edward Franklin Pugsley was the oldest of Philip and Martha Pugsley's children. He was born in England in 1852 and emigrated with his parents to Salt Lake City when he was a year old. He married Evelyn Rosette ("Rosa") Harmon in 1875 and had a large family of nine children with seven of them living to adulthood. Joseph died in 1916.

Joseph Smith Barlow was the husband of Philip and Clarissa Pugsley's daughter Clarissa. He was born in 1856 in Salt Lake City, and he died in 1919 in Salt Lake City. Joseph and Clarissa had eight children. At the time of Philip Pugsley's death, his second wife Clarissa Ames Pugsley was living with Joseph and Clarissa Barlow. Joseph Barlow was a member of Salt Lake City's early successful baseball team, the Salt Lake Deserets. The team played games at Washington Square, now the City and County Building, and sometimes the games were attended by as many as 5,000 people. After a controversy in 1877 over the name of the team due to its connection to Mormon culture, Heber J. Grant and Barlow and others formed the Salt Lake Red Stockings, another successful team. In 1880 the city banned baseball in Washington Square due to its connection to gambling, and Joseph S. Barlow began a career in law enforcement.

Photo of the gavel from commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jonathunder by way of www.flickr.com/photos/thomasroche/2647964165/.

Philip Pugsley Will and Probate, Funeral

The Pugsley Family originally lived in the Nineteenth Ward, but on March 31, 1889, the western part of the ward became the Twenty-second Ward, and that's where Philip attended church until his death on August 7, 1903. Here are a few notes on the people in the Philip Pugsley funeral. The list reads like a "Who's Who" of Salt Lake City.

Presiding: Alfred Solomon. Solomon (1836-1921) was a British convert. He came to the United States in 1857. He was first involved in boot and shoe manufacturing, then later in the wholesale and retail business as Solomon Brothers. He served for a time as chief of police. He was called as bishop of the Twenty-second Ward when it was formed in 1889 and was still bishop at the time he presided at Philip Pugsley's funeral.

Speaker: Philip Margetts. Margetts (1829-1914) was a noted actor in Utah and the brother of Philip Pugsley's deceased business partner, Richard B. Margetts.

Speaker: James Sharp. Sharp (1843-1904) was a Scottish immigrant and the mayor of Salt Lake City from 1884 to 1886. He was the son of the "Railroad Bishop of Utah," John Sharp.

Speaker: Bishop George Romney. This is long-time Salt Lake City resident George Romney (1831-1920) and not George S. Romney of the political Romney family. Bishop George Romney was a well-known business man, church worker, and was active in politics.

Speaker: Elder John Henry Smith. Smith (1848-1911) was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Speaker: Angus M. Cannon. Angus Cannon (1834-1915) was the Stake President at the time of the funeral. His name is familiar as the appellant in the Supreme Court case Cannon v. United States.

Speaker: Bishop Solomon (see above.)

Soloist: Lizzie Thomas Edward. Mary Elizabeth Thomas Edward (1866-1936), a Welsh convert, was a beloved singer and was frequently found providing musical selections at funerals. She left the next month to study music in the East.

Opening Prayer: N. V. Jones. Nathaniel Vary Jones, Jr. (1850-1921) was a lawyer. He was married to a Barlow, so the two families were somehow connected.

Closing Prayer: A. Milton Musser. Musser (1830-1909) was a banker and involved in the development of the railroad in Utah and was involved in many church and community activities. In 1902 he was appointed as assistant church historian.

Philip Pugsley Will and Probate, Funeral

...And, the funeral...

Philip Pugsley Will and Probate, Obituary

Before Philip Pugsley's will could be probated, he had to die, which he did on August 7, 1903. Here is the notice of his death in the Deseret Evening News. More on this topic on subsequent days...

Deseret Evening News. (Salt Lake City, Utah), August 07, 1903, Last Edition, p. 2.

Philip Pugsley Will and Probate, Part 4

As we start the final part of the case, the Court is still discussing Sawyer’s Heirs v. Sawyer. Even if you are not too interested in the Pugsley case, the next to the last paragraph is still worth reading ("In this case, as appears from the record..."). During the next week, we will look at the coverage of the case in the newspaper and then look at the case in its historical context.

Mr. Justice Redfield, delivering the opinion of the court, said: “The exceptions claimed in the present case are, first, on the ground of the pension which the widow obtained, as such, upon the decease of her husband. This is not different, in principle, from her being possessed of ability to maintain herself in any other mode, so as not to require assistance from the estate. And indeed the general ability of the appellee, or the widow in this case, from her living with her father, and the wealth of the family, and the very great improbability of his making any personal claim against his daughter for her board, was also alluded to in the argument, and is stated in the case, and seems to us to come fairly under consideration in the same connection. But we are not prepared to say that any such exception can fairly be ingrafted upon the statute. If it had been the purpose of the Legislature to allow maintenance only in the case of such widow [sic] and children as were without the means of subsistence in any other mode, it is difficult to conjecture how it occurred that the provision should have been expressed in the general and unlimited manner it here is. It is incomprehensible that, if the provision were intended only for the indigent and necessitous, it should have been made general. It is at all events, sufficient for us that, the provision being general, it must be allowed to have a general application.” 1 Woerner, Am. Law Adm. 77-83, 87, 88; Griesemer v. Boyer & Rex, 13 Wash. 171, 43 Pac. 17; In re Welch's Estate, 106 Cal. 427, 39 Pac. 805; Strawn v. Strawn, 53 Ill. 263; Cheney v. Cheney, 73 Ga. 66; Brown v. Hodgdon, 31 Me. 65.

     In this case, as appears from the record, the widow is about 75 years old, and all the children and legatees are over the age of maturity—the oldest one being about 51 years old—and there is nothing to show that they are not all able to support themselves. The appraised value of the estate is over $50,000—savings of a lifetime, which this aged wife and mother assisted in accumulating, doubtless in the hope of having ample in her old days for her support and maintenance. Under the will, however, this wife of more than half a century found the provision for her so meager that she chose to renounce it and rely upon the mercy of the law of inheritance, and, as a result, received, the respondents say, for her portion, real estate of the value of $4,200; and when, in addition to this paltry sum, the aged wife and mother comes into court and asks for but a reasonable allowance out of her own savings for her support during administration, she is met with resistance, on legal technicalities without merit, and a refusal. There seems to be nothing in the record to justify this. In our judgment, this is a case in which the circumstances warrant a liberal allowance for the support of the widow during the whole time of administration.

     The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, with directions to the court below to set aside the order refusing an allowance, and proceed in accordance herewith. It is so ordered.

BASKIN, C. J., and McCARTY, J. concur.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Thank you to a reader for sending the actual legal citation for this case:

In re Pugsley’s Estate, 76 P. 560, 27 Utah 489 (Utah Sup. Ct., 1904)

And this is my source for the case, although it is also available in other collections:

The Pacific Reporter, Vol. 76 pp 560-63. (1904.)

Philip Pugsley Will and Probate, Part 3

The language of the first part of this last provision is express and mandatory; that of the latter part, discretionary. Upon proper application therefor [sic], some allowance must be granted as of absolute right; but the amount thereof rests within the sound discretion of the court, and is not subject to interference by the appellate court, except in case of a clear abuse of discretion. The period for which an allowance must be granted, under this statute, is “during administration” of the estate. In fixing the amount of the allowance, the ages of the survivor or survivors, their health, their social position and standing, the education of the children, the value of the estate, and its solvency or insolvency, are proper subjects for consideration; but the court has no right to refuse an allowance altogether, and thereby make the support of the family out of the estate, while administration continues, depend upon conditions which the Legislature did not see fit to impose. “In determining,” says Judge Woerner, “the amount necessary for such purpose, regard may be had to the state of the health, age, and habits of the widow, the number and age of the children immediately dependent upon her, as well as the value of the estate, and of her dower and distributive share therein. It may also be considered whether or not she is accustomed to hard labor, and thus enabled to support herself, or if, by reason of ill health or other circumstances, she is unable to do so. A smaller amount will be proper in the former case than that which may be necessary in the latter. When the statute fixes the time for the duration of which the allowance is to be made, it must, of course, be sufficient to secure the reasonable comfort of the family during the whole of such period, if used with ordinary prudence and economy. If the estate is large, apparently solvent, and the allowance merely an anticipation of the widow's distributive share, a more liberal allowance will be justified than where it is small or insolvent; and what would be a reasonable allowance for one accustomed to privation and labor might be very unreasonable for one raised in affluence.” 1 Woerner, Am. Law Adm. § 79.

In the case of In re Lux, 100 Cal. 593, 35 Pac. 341, the Supreme Court of California, after holding, in reference to a similar provision of statute for family allowance, that “its language is express and mandatory,” said: “The allowance is to be sufficient to provide all the necessaries of life, and this will include all those things which are reasonable and proper for use in the home and in social intercourse, in view of the condition and value of the estate and the station and surroundings of the family.” The question here presented was before the Supreme Court of Vermont in Sawyer’s Heirs v. Sawyer, 28 Vt. 245. There the statute provided that “the widow and children constituting the family of the deceased, shall have such reasonable allowance out of the personal estate, as the probate court shall judge necessary for their maintenance during the progress of the settlement of the estate, according to their circumstances.” It was urged that the widow was not entitled to an allowance, because since her husband’s death she was in receipt of a pension from the United States, and was living with her father, who was a man of wealth, and made no charge against her for support. The court held that the financial ability of the widow to support herself without aid from the estate was immaterial, that the statute was one of general application, and that the probate court had a discretion only as to the amount of the allowance, and could not refuse it altogether.

To be continued...

Part 1

Part 2

Philip Pugsley Will and Probate, Part 2

The appellant insists that this action of the court was erroneous, and, in support of her contention, relies upon section 3846, Rev. St. 1898, which, upon the subject of “Family Support,” provides: “When a person dies leaving a surviving wife or husband or minor children, they shall be entitled to remain in possession of the homestead and to the use of the property exempt from execution until otherwise directed by the court; and during administration shall receive such allowance out of the estate as the court may deem necessary and reasonable for their support. Such allowance may date from the death of the decedent, and in insolvent estates shall not continue for longer than one year after the granting of letters, and must be paid in preference to all other charges except expenses of the funeral and of administration.” It is contended for the appellant that, under this statute, the widow has an absolute right to a family allowance during the administration of the estate of her deceased husband, notwithstanding that a portion of the real estate was set apart to her as her share of the estate. The respondents insist that the setting apart and acceptance by the widow of such portion, she having renounced her rights under the will, is a waiver and bar to any subsequent allowance to her out of the estate, and that the purpose of family allowance is to provide for the “present support” of the widow or children until such time as the court may set apart to her her distributive share in the estate. We think the contention of the appellant is well taken and that the position of the respondents is not sound. We are not disposed to adopt such a narrow and rigid construction of the statute as is insisted upon by them—a construction so utterly at variance with the spirit of legislative liberality so manifest from the context. The construction insisted upon would do violence alike to the spirit and terms of the statute. The ground upon which this contention is based, that the widow has received her share of the real estate of the deceased, is not materially different in principle from that of instances where it is insisted that the widow is not entitled to family allowance because she has abundant means of her own for her support. The statute was not enacted merely for the purpose of providing properly for indigent widows and children during the administration of their decedents’ estates, but for all persons mentioned therein, regardless of their ability to provide for themselves out of their own private property. Such statutes, like homestead and exemption laws, are enacted because of a benevolent and humane consideration of the helpless condition and distress of families occasioned by the death of those who had furnished their support and protection, and they must be construed with the same spirit of liberality that prompted their enactment. By the enactment of such laws the Legislature under a wise public policy, seeks to guard and protect the family, which constitutes the foundation of the state itself, during the trying period of affliction and need caused by the death of the one who directed the family affairs. The statute under consideration, as will be seen by an examination of it, does not make dependence on an allowance a prerequisite to such an allowance. It grants to the surviving wife or husband or children who may constitute the family of the deceased the use of the homestead and property exempt from execution until the court shall otherwise direct, and then provides that during administration they “shall receive such allowance out of the estate as the court may deem necessary and reasonable for their support.”

To be continued…

Part 1