|
The Case of Arthur Walter Grimes
(1929-1930) by Andrea Harris Arthur W. Grimes, a British Home Child who allegedly endured years of abuse, stood trial twice for murdering his employer's wife. After both trials resulted in a hung jury, the charges were ultimately dismissed by the crown.
Some brief news clippings regarding Arthur Grimes have been posted in the BHCARA FB group before, but The Globe newspaper covered the case extensively and these articles add much detail and context to his story. Arthur Grimes was 15 years old when he came to Canada aboard the S.S. Regina with a party of children from National Children's Home, landing at Quebec on May 7, 1922. After spending a brief time at the receiving home in Hamilton and a first placement in St. George, Ontario, Arthur was placed with the Stuart family of Grassie’s Corners near Grimsby. His Juvenile Inspection report indicates that his formal indenture period was completed in 1926 and a note at the time states: "Arthur is a fair worker, if very untidy, the boy is happy & contented." |
Almost three years later, Arthur was still living and working on the Stuart's farm. On February 9, 1929, Arthur and Mrs. Pearl Stuart were left together on the farm while Mr. James Stuart and his 9-year-old daughter, Margaret, went on a shopping trip to Grimsby. That afternoon, Mrs. Stuart allegedly asked Arthur to lift a sick calf that was lying in foul bedding. Arthur later stated that he was unable to lift the calf as the smell was turning his stomach. When he told Mrs. Stuart he was unable to do what she asked, she allegedly hit him twice with a pitchfork. Arthur then went to the woodshed where he began to chop wood. Mrs. Stuart apparently followed him and came at him again, and Arthur allegedly confessed that he had struck Mrs. Stuart on the head with an axe in self-defense. Mr. Stuart discovered his wife's body after returning to the farm from the shopping trip and searching for her for some time.
When police arrived they followed footprints in the snow and found Arthur hunkered down in the corner of a field with a bag of food. He was so weak they had to half-carry him back to their car, and at first Arthur behaved as a “mute” when police tried to question him (it seems, possibly due to shock).
Surprisingly, public support for Arthur was strong from the start when details of the story broke. Two lawyers were retained for Arthur Grimes’ defence. National Children’s Homes stated they would “save no expense on defending the youth,” and hired lawyer Peter White, K.C. of Hamilton. Also, a Hamilton philanthropist hired D.A. Robinson, another Hamilton lawyer, to work for the defense. “‘I have simply retained Mr. Robinson to assist in defending the case of a poor English lad in a strange country without friends,” the anonymous patron was quoted to say. (“Young Farmhand Sent Up For Trial on Murder Charges.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 26 Feb 1929: 5.).
In response to this news, “A Farmer’s Wife” from West Montrose, Ontario wrote a letter to the Editor of The Globe expressing her relief that Arthur was going to be well-represented at trial and detailing how she once had taken in a home boy who had turned up at her door in a pitiable condition. “I say all honor to the kind hearts, both in our country and in the Old Land, that are going to see justice done. Many home boys who are placed out here have good homes and many haven’t, but how this boy in particular was treated has yet to be proved.” (“A Kindly Act.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 8 Mar 1929: 4.).
One of the initial articles about the case stated: "The prisoner has an impediment in his speech, and when the officers first called upon him at the jail he acted as if he were deaf and dumb. The officers, in view of the statements of the prisoner, that he had been ill-used, had a medical examination made. They say he has the appearance of being poorly nourished, and does not look 21 years old, as claimed by himself.” (“Farmer’s Wife Slain and Hired Man Held on Murder Charge.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 11 Feb 1929: 1).
Once Arthur’s trial began, many details came out about his physical and mental condition while living with the Stuarts:
"Stuart said that he [Grimes] had come to him as a lad of fifteen, and he had contracted to pay him $5 a month and supply him with board and clothes. Grimes was also to have schooling. The wages were gradually increased to $10 a month, as the contract with the National Children's Home Association was renewed every year. Mr. White presented statements showing Grimes had received from 80 cents to $1.30 a year for spending money, and Stuart said they were correct. He paid the youth by the year. He admitted that Grimes's bedroom had no heat, that once when Grimes first came to him as a lad of fifteen he had thrown him out of the barn door, and his knowledge of what friends or diversions the boy had was exceedingly vague. 'I supposed my friends were his friends,' said Stuart." (“Farmer Examined on His Treatment of Alleged Slayer.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 9 Oct 1929: 5]
"... the boy was very poorly dressed and badly nourished. He weighed 113 pounds when he came to the jail on Feb. 9 last. A month ago he had tipped the scales at 145, and this morning he had weighed 135. He had been fed on ordinary prison fare, with a pint of milk a day. ... when Grimes arrived at the jail his body was in a very dirty state, but marks could be seen on his arms, legs and back. There was an old mark, three by four inches in size at the base of his spine, but the marks on his arms seemed fresh... The prisoner appeared "dormant" in both mind and body." (“Alleged Confession Excluded by Judge at Farmhand’s Trial: Grimes’s Body Scarred.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 11 Oct 1929: 24.).
There was even doubt as to whether Arthur was even physically strong enough to have hurt Mrs. Stuart, and the police constable who testified was chastised on the stand by the defense for not taking fingerprints on the handle of the axe. The “confession” in which Grimes had admitted to striking Mrs. Stuart with the axe was not admitted as evidence, as there was a question as to whether Grimes was coerced into signing the account of events. Also there was slim circumstantial evidence to connect Grimes with the crime, mostly hinging upon the whereabouts of a paper bag of gumdrops that Mr. Stuart had purchased on the shopping trip to Grimsby and that was allegedly found in the pocket of Arthur Grimes’ ragged overalls. "Defense counsel Peter White stated: "There is nothing to connect Grimes with the killing of Mrs. Stuart, except, perhaps, the fact that he ran away. Someone else may have killed the woman, or her death may have resulted from a dozen different things. Grimes ran away and hid, it is true, but he may have been panic-stricken over something." (“Young Farmhand Sent Up For Trial on Murder Charges.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 26 Feb 1929: 5.).
Arthur's first trial resulted in a hung jury when 7 of 12 jurors voted for his acquittal. Judge W.E. Raney made several questionable statements after the jury failed to render a verdict including, "I am quite plain about my impressions and expressions. The evidence is clear. I have never heard, in all my experience, a plainer case of responsibility than for the death of this woman." Also, "Well, all I can say is that I hope this will not be a precedent, and that the result of this trial will not be an encouragement to hired men in this Province to murder their mistresses." (“Jury Fails to Agree and Trial of Grimes Goes to Next Court.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 12 Oct 1929: 1.).
At the second trial, Judge McEvoy refused to allow any questioning of the farmer James Stuart about his relationship with the accused, "'I cannot see what anything which may have happened since 1922, and up to the time of the death of Mrs. Stewart, had to do with this crime, and I must refuse to allow questioning on the subject,' his Lordship ruled." (“Crown’s Case Ends Abruptly at Trial of Arthur Grimes.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 20 Mar 1930: 2.).
The second trial placed further doubt on Arthur’s connection to the murder. A doctor testified that the stains found on Grimes’ clothing were not blood, as was suggested at the first trial. 11 of the 12 jurors voted for a not guilty verdict at the second trial.
After two trials failed to produce any verdict, the Crown decided to drop the charges against Arthur. Although it was stated that he would need to report to a parole officer periodically following his release, it was also reported that: "Assurances have been given by friendly disposed people that Grimes' education will be looked after and that he will be given a chance in life." (“Arthur Grimes Is Freed From Jail.” The Windsor Star [Windsor, Ontario] 11 Aug 1930: 12.).
Sources:
FARMER'S WIFE SLAIN AND HIRED MAN HELD ON MURDER CHARGE: Dog Leads Husband to Battered Body Hidden Beneath Floor. BEATEN, CLAIMS ACCUSED: North Grimsby Farmhand Alleged to Have Made Confession. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 11 Feb 1929: 1.
MRS. JAMES STUART IS DEEPLY MOURNED. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 14 Feb 1929: 20
OPEN VERDICT GIVEN AT CORONER'S PROBE OF WOMAN'S MURDER: Mrs. Stuart of North Grimsby Killed by "Person Unknown" FARMHAND NOT CALLED. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 20 Feb 1929: 5.
YOUNG FARMHAND SENT UP FOR TRIAL ON MURDER CHARGE: Arthur Grimes, Committed for Alleged Killing of Employer's Wife NO CONFESSION PRODUCED. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 26 Feb 1929: 5
A KINDLY ACT: Letter to the Editor by A Farmer's Wife. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 8 Mar 1929: 4.
TRUE BILL RETURNED, BUT TRIAL DELAYED: Arthur W. Grimes to Face Murder Charge Next Court NO OBJECTION IS MADE. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 19 Mar 1929: 3.
IMMIGRANT YOUTH ACCUSED OF MURDER: Arthur Grimes Faces Trial Charged With Killing Employer's Wife. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 7 Oct 1929: 14
EMPLOYER EXAMINED ON HIS TREATMENT OF ALLEGED SLAYER: 22-Year-0ld Farmhand Received 80 Gents to $1.30 a Year Spending Money WIFE'S DEATH DESCRIBED.The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 9 Oct 1929: 5.
CHILD IS QUESTIONED CONCERNING MURDER ON GRASSIES FARM: Ten-Year-Old Daughter of Slain Woman Called to Stand COUNSEL SCORES OFFICER. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 10 Oct 1929: 12.
CHILD IS QUESTIONED CONCERNING MURDER ON GRASSIES FARM: Ten-Year-Old Daughter of Slain Woman Called to Stand COUNSEL SCORES OFFICER. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 10 Oct 1929: 12.
ALLEGED CONFESSION EXCLUDED BY JUDGE AT FARMHAND'S TRIAL: No Evidence Will Be Offered by Defense, Peter White Announces GRIMES'S BODY SCARRED. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 11 Oct 1929: 24.
JURY FAILS TO AGREE AND TRIAL OF GRIMES GOES TO NEXT COURT: Judge Voices Hope That Outcome Will Not Encourage Murders 12 HOURS' DELIBERATION But Justice Raney States He Has Never Heard Plainer Case. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 12 Oct 1929: 1.
TRIAL FIXED FOR TODAY. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 18 Mar 1930: 9.
CROWN'S CASE ENDS ABRUPTLY AT TRIAL OF ARTHUR GRIMES: Interest Centres in Medical Evidence Presented in St. Catharines. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 20 Mar 1930: 2.
JURY DISAGREEMENT ENDS SECOND TRIAL OF ARTHUR GRIMES: No Verdict Reached on Charge of Murdering Employer's Wife; YOUTH REMANDED TO JAIL: Failure Reported in St. Catharines Court After 6 1-2 Hours' Deliberation. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 21 Mar 1930: 1.
FARMHAND IS FREED OF MURDER CHARGE: Arthur Grimes, Twice Tried, Released on Order of Department ACCUSED OF AXE ATTACK.The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 16 June 1930: 2.
ENGLISH BOY FREED AFTER TWO TRIALS: Arthur Grimes Is Liberated From Jail Following Jury Disagreements. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 12 Aug 1930: 3.
Arthur Grimes Is Freed From Jail. The Windsor Star [Windsor, Ontario] 11 Aug 1930: 12.
When police arrived they followed footprints in the snow and found Arthur hunkered down in the corner of a field with a bag of food. He was so weak they had to half-carry him back to their car, and at first Arthur behaved as a “mute” when police tried to question him (it seems, possibly due to shock).
Surprisingly, public support for Arthur was strong from the start when details of the story broke. Two lawyers were retained for Arthur Grimes’ defence. National Children’s Homes stated they would “save no expense on defending the youth,” and hired lawyer Peter White, K.C. of Hamilton. Also, a Hamilton philanthropist hired D.A. Robinson, another Hamilton lawyer, to work for the defense. “‘I have simply retained Mr. Robinson to assist in defending the case of a poor English lad in a strange country without friends,” the anonymous patron was quoted to say. (“Young Farmhand Sent Up For Trial on Murder Charges.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 26 Feb 1929: 5.).
In response to this news, “A Farmer’s Wife” from West Montrose, Ontario wrote a letter to the Editor of The Globe expressing her relief that Arthur was going to be well-represented at trial and detailing how she once had taken in a home boy who had turned up at her door in a pitiable condition. “I say all honor to the kind hearts, both in our country and in the Old Land, that are going to see justice done. Many home boys who are placed out here have good homes and many haven’t, but how this boy in particular was treated has yet to be proved.” (“A Kindly Act.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 8 Mar 1929: 4.).
One of the initial articles about the case stated: "The prisoner has an impediment in his speech, and when the officers first called upon him at the jail he acted as if he were deaf and dumb. The officers, in view of the statements of the prisoner, that he had been ill-used, had a medical examination made. They say he has the appearance of being poorly nourished, and does not look 21 years old, as claimed by himself.” (“Farmer’s Wife Slain and Hired Man Held on Murder Charge.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 11 Feb 1929: 1).
Once Arthur’s trial began, many details came out about his physical and mental condition while living with the Stuarts:
"Stuart said that he [Grimes] had come to him as a lad of fifteen, and he had contracted to pay him $5 a month and supply him with board and clothes. Grimes was also to have schooling. The wages were gradually increased to $10 a month, as the contract with the National Children's Home Association was renewed every year. Mr. White presented statements showing Grimes had received from 80 cents to $1.30 a year for spending money, and Stuart said they were correct. He paid the youth by the year. He admitted that Grimes's bedroom had no heat, that once when Grimes first came to him as a lad of fifteen he had thrown him out of the barn door, and his knowledge of what friends or diversions the boy had was exceedingly vague. 'I supposed my friends were his friends,' said Stuart." (“Farmer Examined on His Treatment of Alleged Slayer.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 9 Oct 1929: 5]
"... the boy was very poorly dressed and badly nourished. He weighed 113 pounds when he came to the jail on Feb. 9 last. A month ago he had tipped the scales at 145, and this morning he had weighed 135. He had been fed on ordinary prison fare, with a pint of milk a day. ... when Grimes arrived at the jail his body was in a very dirty state, but marks could be seen on his arms, legs and back. There was an old mark, three by four inches in size at the base of his spine, but the marks on his arms seemed fresh... The prisoner appeared "dormant" in both mind and body." (“Alleged Confession Excluded by Judge at Farmhand’s Trial: Grimes’s Body Scarred.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 11 Oct 1929: 24.).
There was even doubt as to whether Arthur was even physically strong enough to have hurt Mrs. Stuart, and the police constable who testified was chastised on the stand by the defense for not taking fingerprints on the handle of the axe. The “confession” in which Grimes had admitted to striking Mrs. Stuart with the axe was not admitted as evidence, as there was a question as to whether Grimes was coerced into signing the account of events. Also there was slim circumstantial evidence to connect Grimes with the crime, mostly hinging upon the whereabouts of a paper bag of gumdrops that Mr. Stuart had purchased on the shopping trip to Grimsby and that was allegedly found in the pocket of Arthur Grimes’ ragged overalls. "Defense counsel Peter White stated: "There is nothing to connect Grimes with the killing of Mrs. Stuart, except, perhaps, the fact that he ran away. Someone else may have killed the woman, or her death may have resulted from a dozen different things. Grimes ran away and hid, it is true, but he may have been panic-stricken over something." (“Young Farmhand Sent Up For Trial on Murder Charges.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 26 Feb 1929: 5.).
Arthur's first trial resulted in a hung jury when 7 of 12 jurors voted for his acquittal. Judge W.E. Raney made several questionable statements after the jury failed to render a verdict including, "I am quite plain about my impressions and expressions. The evidence is clear. I have never heard, in all my experience, a plainer case of responsibility than for the death of this woman." Also, "Well, all I can say is that I hope this will not be a precedent, and that the result of this trial will not be an encouragement to hired men in this Province to murder their mistresses." (“Jury Fails to Agree and Trial of Grimes Goes to Next Court.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 12 Oct 1929: 1.).
At the second trial, Judge McEvoy refused to allow any questioning of the farmer James Stuart about his relationship with the accused, "'I cannot see what anything which may have happened since 1922, and up to the time of the death of Mrs. Stewart, had to do with this crime, and I must refuse to allow questioning on the subject,' his Lordship ruled." (“Crown’s Case Ends Abruptly at Trial of Arthur Grimes.” The Globe [Toronto, Ontario] 20 Mar 1930: 2.).
The second trial placed further doubt on Arthur’s connection to the murder. A doctor testified that the stains found on Grimes’ clothing were not blood, as was suggested at the first trial. 11 of the 12 jurors voted for a not guilty verdict at the second trial.
After two trials failed to produce any verdict, the Crown decided to drop the charges against Arthur. Although it was stated that he would need to report to a parole officer periodically following his release, it was also reported that: "Assurances have been given by friendly disposed people that Grimes' education will be looked after and that he will be given a chance in life." (“Arthur Grimes Is Freed From Jail.” The Windsor Star [Windsor, Ontario] 11 Aug 1930: 12.).
Sources:
FARMER'S WIFE SLAIN AND HIRED MAN HELD ON MURDER CHARGE: Dog Leads Husband to Battered Body Hidden Beneath Floor. BEATEN, CLAIMS ACCUSED: North Grimsby Farmhand Alleged to Have Made Confession. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 11 Feb 1929: 1.
MRS. JAMES STUART IS DEEPLY MOURNED. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 14 Feb 1929: 20
OPEN VERDICT GIVEN AT CORONER'S PROBE OF WOMAN'S MURDER: Mrs. Stuart of North Grimsby Killed by "Person Unknown" FARMHAND NOT CALLED. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 20 Feb 1929: 5.
YOUNG FARMHAND SENT UP FOR TRIAL ON MURDER CHARGE: Arthur Grimes, Committed for Alleged Killing of Employer's Wife NO CONFESSION PRODUCED. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 26 Feb 1929: 5
A KINDLY ACT: Letter to the Editor by A Farmer's Wife. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 8 Mar 1929: 4.
TRUE BILL RETURNED, BUT TRIAL DELAYED: Arthur W. Grimes to Face Murder Charge Next Court NO OBJECTION IS MADE. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 19 Mar 1929: 3.
IMMIGRANT YOUTH ACCUSED OF MURDER: Arthur Grimes Faces Trial Charged With Killing Employer's Wife. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 7 Oct 1929: 14
EMPLOYER EXAMINED ON HIS TREATMENT OF ALLEGED SLAYER: 22-Year-0ld Farmhand Received 80 Gents to $1.30 a Year Spending Money WIFE'S DEATH DESCRIBED.The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 9 Oct 1929: 5.
CHILD IS QUESTIONED CONCERNING MURDER ON GRASSIES FARM: Ten-Year-Old Daughter of Slain Woman Called to Stand COUNSEL SCORES OFFICER. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 10 Oct 1929: 12.
CHILD IS QUESTIONED CONCERNING MURDER ON GRASSIES FARM: Ten-Year-Old Daughter of Slain Woman Called to Stand COUNSEL SCORES OFFICER. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 10 Oct 1929: 12.
ALLEGED CONFESSION EXCLUDED BY JUDGE AT FARMHAND'S TRIAL: No Evidence Will Be Offered by Defense, Peter White Announces GRIMES'S BODY SCARRED. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 11 Oct 1929: 24.
JURY FAILS TO AGREE AND TRIAL OF GRIMES GOES TO NEXT COURT: Judge Voices Hope That Outcome Will Not Encourage Murders 12 HOURS' DELIBERATION But Justice Raney States He Has Never Heard Plainer Case. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 12 Oct 1929: 1.
TRIAL FIXED FOR TODAY. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 18 Mar 1930: 9.
CROWN'S CASE ENDS ABRUPTLY AT TRIAL OF ARTHUR GRIMES: Interest Centres in Medical Evidence Presented in St. Catharines. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 20 Mar 1930: 2.
JURY DISAGREEMENT ENDS SECOND TRIAL OF ARTHUR GRIMES: No Verdict Reached on Charge of Murdering Employer's Wife; YOUTH REMANDED TO JAIL: Failure Reported in St. Catharines Court After 6 1-2 Hours' Deliberation. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 21 Mar 1930: 1.
FARMHAND IS FREED OF MURDER CHARGE: Arthur Grimes, Twice Tried, Released on Order of Department ACCUSED OF AXE ATTACK.The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 16 June 1930: 2.
ENGLISH BOY FREED AFTER TWO TRIALS: Arthur Grimes Is Liberated From Jail Following Jury Disagreements. The Globe [Toronto, Ont] 12 Aug 1930: 3.
Arthur Grimes Is Freed From Jail. The Windsor Star [Windsor, Ontario] 11 Aug 1930: 12.
