Click Slide menu on left
Ethel Florence Guilford
  C D Barraud Painting of Wellington (abt 1870)

Ethel Florence Guilford was b: 03 Aug 1886 in Wellington, the youngest child born to parents James and Mary Guilford.

Evening Post: BIRTH. GUILFORD— On 3rd August, 1886, at Marjoribank Street, the wife of James Guilford, of a daughter

Ethel attended Taitai School 1893; Admitted Petone Central Oct 1895 from Otaki, last day 19 June 1896; she left 1900

Ethel Guilford's first daughter Florence (Florrie) Maud Guilford was b: 27 Jan 1906 in Upper Hutt; she attended the Sumner School for the Deaf 1913;  d: 16 Jan 1981 in Nelson; Bur: 19 Feb 1981 Marsden Valley Cem.

1908 - Auckland East Electorate Roll - Living at "Ellesmere"; Princess St; spinster

Ethel Guilford's second daughter Gladys Lillian Guilford was b: 18 Jun 1908 in Upper Hutt;

NZ Truth, 30 Jan 1909: A YOUTHFUL DADDY. Guileless Ethel Guilford walking out with Walker -She Had a Previous Experience.
Harold Walker, a youth of sixteen years and eight months of age, appeared on remand before Mr Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court on Monday morning last, charged with failing to provide for the maintenance of his illegitimate child, of which Ethel Guilford is the mother. Harold Walker had been arrested on the 9th Jan, and denied paternity. Ethel Guilford, the complainant, said she was going on for 22 years of age. She had been living at Edwards' grocer shop at Kilbirnie when she first met accused. Their first cold exchanges of friendship soon gave way to the warmer embraces of illicit love upon the bleak and stony hillsides of Kilbirnie, and on Jun 18 last (after pleasant associations of over 18 months) a child was born. Defendant had often promised to marry her, but about six weeks before the youngster's birth he denied his paternity altogether. Ethel and her mother demanded a sum of £100 from Walker, and threatened him with Court proceedings if he didn't pay up, whereupon he said he would jump over the Miramar wharf if she took steps agaiast him. Walker repeatably said he would go away, and finally cleared out. In November Ethel issued a warrant and he was arrested on Jan 9 last. At her sister's place, in the presence of her sister and brother-in-law, Walker promised to marry her. On Jan 11, Albert Walker, brother of accused, offered £70 to get a clear receipt of all liability for Harold. Witness refused to take less than £100, as her mother said it was little enough. He left saying he would see his father. He called on her again on Saturday last and offered her £40, which she world not accept. Cross-examined by Mr Finlay: She first met defendant just before twelve months. last Easier, and had been walking out with him over twelve months. She had one child previously - that happened four years ago. She didn't know where the father of the first child was. She never went out with others, but admitted being out with Willie Carter at 9.30pm one night while she was living in Constable street. Three names were handed up to the witness with a request from Mr Finlay to state what witness knew of them, and she replied that she knew them and used to go out with them, but that was before she knew Walker. She had not been taken home at 1 a.m. by any man, and had not misconducted herself with other men whilst she was walking out with Walker. Her appointments with Walker at night were made near his father's stable. Walker said in the presence of Johnny McNelis and herself that HE WOULD MARRY HER. Maud Adelaide Hebblestone, a married sister of complainant met defendant for the first time on the Saturday evening previous to his arrest. At her house Walker admitted having got Ethel into trouble, and promised to marry her. John McNelis said he knew both parties, and one day when in company with Ethel, he was walking along the Queen's Drive and Walker came up and spoke to the girl. He couldn't say what transpired, as he did not listen, but he heard the marriage mentioned. Cross-examined by Mr Finlay: Witness had seen complainant out walking with a man during the last 18 months. Harry Stewart, a steward on the U.S.S. Co's service, said he met Walker for the first time in his life on Saturday week at the piace he (Stewart) was staying at. Walker brought round a paper for the girl to sign, in which she was to agree to a settlement for a sum of £40. She would not sign it, as her mother would not agree to it. Harold C. Walker (the defendant) then went into the box, and stated he was sixteen years and eight months old, and had lived for some time with his parents at Kilbirnie. He had only misconducted himself upon four occasions with complainant, at different spots in Kilbirnie. He denied fraternity of the child, and he was willing to have the matter squared up by paying her a lump sum of £40, and she was perfectly willing to take that sum until HER MOTHER PUT IN HER SPOKE and stopped it. He never at any time promised to marry her, and couldn't have done so if he was willing. He had seen the child, and was thoroughly satisfied in his own mind that it wasn't his. He was fifteen years old when he first started going out with the girl, and was not seventeen years old. Complainant called on him on Wednesday night and wanted £100 to square the case, and finally she brought the sum down to £50. He had been working for his father, but things had been made so uncomfortable at home for him that he decided to clear out. He had been idle now for two weeks. When he worked he earned 30s a week driving horses, and out of that he paid 18s for board. Complainant had been out with other men, and had said that she would fasten the child on him whether he was the father or not. She was out with men until all hours, and once with a man named Gooch until 1.30 a.m., and the man was drunk too. Mr Finlay submitted that the girl was older than the boy, knew what she was about, had experience before, and REALLY SEDUCED HIS CLIENT. Under the circumstances he thought if the Bench made any order it should be a light one. Mr Riddell said the evidence was sufficient to convict accused, although the girl was older and had the experience of the consequences of previous lapse, to guide her, yet he thought he must make an order of 4s 6d per week to start from Feb 1st of £6 6s costs and £1 1s solicitor's fee. Accused to find a bond of £25 for security of payments - seven days allowed accused to find the necessary bond - default was fixed at two months imprisonment.

Evening Post, 13 Aug 1910, MAGISTRATE'S COURT: Mr. H. Buddle appeared for a young woman named Ethel Florence Guilford, who admitted having stolen £9 2s 6d in cash, the property of Molly Black. According to the chief-detective, complainant and accused occupied a room together in a house where they were employed as waitresses. Miss Black put the £9 2s 6d in an unlocked box in her room, and during her absence on Thursday accused abstracted the cash, took it to the house of an acquaintance at Kilbirnie, and there "planted" the money outside. She admitted the theft to Detective Kemp, who accompanied accused to the place where it was buried. Mr. Buddie submitted that complainant had been constantly "bragging" to accused that she had the money, and that the latter's temptation was thus accentuated. Her employers were willing to take her back, and the whole of the money had been restored. His Worship admonished defendant on her conduct, entered a conviction, and ordered her to come up for sentence when called upon

On 24 May 1911, Ethel Florence Guilford  had a son,  William Victor Hargreaves who was adopted by his father, William Henry Hargreaves.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT Evening Post, 25 Nov 1912: MAGISTRATE'S COURT: At the Magistrate's Court  Ethel Guilford was sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment for disobedience of a maintenance order, the warrant to be suspended as long as 2s a week is paid into court.

NZ Truth: 4 Dec 1915, AN ALLEGED DEN RAID ON ELIZABETH-STREET "JOINT" - WHAT THE POLICE ALLEGED: At the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, on the 18th inst, before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper. S.M., a box full of butterflies made their appearance and were asked to explain certain happenings which were alleged to have occurred at 58 Elizabeth street, Wellington. Rosina Henry was charged with keeping a common brothel. Rosa, sometimes is known as Mrs. Giles and Mrs. James Alice Hawthorn, a sister of the alleged keeper was charged along with Jessie Sutherland and a sweet young thing named Ethel Guilford or Pope (explantion: Ethel's mother Mary remarried in 1903 to William Pope so Ethel may have been using her stepfather's name) with assisting in the management of the establishment. With the butterflies were ranged five young gentlemen, one named Harry Giles, a gentleman about 29 years of age and fully six feet in height, being conjointly charged with Rosina with KEEPING THE ALLEGED DEN. George Wells, Andrew Price (more generally known as "Sam"), and Leonard Boccker were arrested and charged with consorting with persons of ill-repute In the house was a five year-old child which was taken charge of by the police. Giles and Rosina Henry lived to-gether as man and wife and there was conclusive evidence that the place was being used as a brothel. Giles was an assistant at a shooting gallery. Rosina drew 21/- per week from her husband's deferred pay, he being a soldier on active service. The soldiers (Boeckor and Guilford, brother of the lovely Ethel were on "sick leave." The other ladies were "common professionals".  One of the men. Andrew (Sammy) Price, was a bootmaker, and he failed to provide for the maintenance of his wife who is in very delicate health, and their child. A warrant was out for his arrest as he was to be charged with attempting to leave the Dominion.

Sergeant Wilcocks said that he knew the bevy of beauties and they were all that the inspector had said of them and more. He specified times and dates on which he had seen soldiers and civilians going in and out of the house. He had watched on Nov 9, 11 and I6 in company with Constable O'Dca and Sergeant Kelly. On Nov 16 he had seen the four ladies mentioned at the establishment. Wells came out to the gate with Bessie. Shortly after Giles came home. One of the ladies was not there (indignant cry from sweet Ethel "I WAS NOT THERE.") He saw several soldiers going in and out. It was not Guilford who went out. There was plenty of the amber liquid about, and the soldier Guilford told him that he had been staying there for about three days. He had only seen Price there once. He had seen Rosina Henry and Alice Hawthorne drinking at the Cambridge Hotel with Guilford (not sweet Ethel) at the rear of the premises. He spoke to the manager, Mr. James, and he TURNED THEM OUT. The man and women became very abusive to him. The sergeant then detailed the arrest and Giles said, "I paid the rent, I don't know anything about thls misbehavior. I go to work at 8o'clock and don't return till 11, but I came home earlier to-night in consequence  of what I'd heard and this is what I find." Bessie Henry saidd: "You can't do anything to me. My husband is at the front, and I'm receving ? a week from him. Ethel Guilford said: "I only came here to see my brother. It is the first time I have been to the house and there's not a stitch of my clothing in the place" When reminded that she had been seen there previously, she admitted it. Prlce admitted previous acquaintance with the placo. Jessie Sutherland said that she had been engaged to do the housework. Inspector Hendrey: From what you saw of the place, what would you say it is? — A brothel.  Lawyer O'Leary (who appeared for the whole of the accused): How do you define a brothel? — A place where where two or three women keep a house for meeting men. The witness admitted that he had not found a bank-book or any sign ot wealth about the premises. He didn't know that, one of the boisterous scenes WAS MERELY A SEND-OFF to George  Armitage, Rosina's brother who was going to the Front. Constable Thomas Young Hall told what he knew of the ladies and gentlemen who patronised No 45 Elizabeth Street - he knew Wells who was generally about with the woman Bessie Henry, Alice Hawthorne and Jessie Sutherland.

Sergeant Fitzpatrick also gave evidence which was also on a par with the previous assertions and when Lawyer O'Leary asked him if the place was a brothel, Fitz. replied. "Certainly, certainly. I know the characters of the women. I know that Sutherland kept company with a prostitute now doing twelve months."

Constable Edward James McKelvie said that he knew the whole coterie of beauty in the box and, from what he had seen of them he catalogued them as *reputable prostitutes* (which is an advance on disreputable ones, perhaps). He had seen some of them drinking with a prostitute named Cissy O'Neil, a well-known character, in the Clyde-quay Hotel.

Constable O'Dea was then called and all respectable women were asked to leave the court. This limb of the law had no doubt whatever about tbe characters of the box full of beauties. They were all "common pros." In answer to Mr. O'Leary, he admitted that he had seen no money pass between any of the men and the women. He detailed his knowledge of the men. A WARRANT WAS OUT FOR PRICE'S ARREST. He had cleared out from Niven's, where he had been working, and had been living with the girl Pope or Guilford. Mr. O'Leary: Do you know if any of the women had any money? — Bessie (Rosina) Henry said that they had plenty of money to pay a solicitor. At this stage an adjournment was made until Monday afternoon.

On resuming on Monday, Mr. O'Leary addressed the bench. He contended that, under section 177 of the Justices of the Peace Act, which described "a house, room, or set of rooms" as being a brothel if kept for the purposes of prostitution, the whole question hinged upon the meaning of the word "prostitute." Inspector Hendrey contended that the evidence disclosed that all the women were common prostitutes and that the men acted as touts.

Rosina Henry was called to give evidence. Mr. O'Leary - "How long have you been in Elizabeth-street?" "Four or five weeks". "What was the arrangement between you?" "That he (meaning Giles) should pay the rent and that I should keep the house going." "Of course, you are living with him?" "Yes." "Now, do you receive any money?" "I get £1 ls per week from my husband, John Henry, who ls at the front." "Now, how did you come to meet the accused woman, Sutherland?" "I had burnt my arm (here witness unbandaged her lily-white arm and displayed the remains of a scar) and I got her to do the housework." "About your sister, Alice Hawthorn?" "My sister gets money from her husband, who works on a boat. She comes to my place because she is lonely and has no place to go to." "Have you any brothers?" "Yes, my brother, George Armitage went to the front on the 13th." Witness went on to say that they were very fond of music at her house and often indulged in piano playing, singing, and they sometimes went to the theatre. She was paying Jessie Sutherland 15/- a week for assisting her. Ethel Guilford had certainly stayed there on the night of the 13th. but had got up at six o'clock the next morning and gone down to her work at the Phoenix Dining-rooms (whero SHE HANDED SOUP AROUND to hungry travellers). She (witnesa) had never received money for Immoral Purposes while she has been in the house. The only money, she had received was from Giles, who paid the rent of the furnished house (37/6 per week, less lighting). She was a fortnight behind in her rent and owed money to the butcher and baker. Inspector Hendrey: How old are you?— l am 28 or 29. Whose is the child which you had in the house? — It is an adopted child and is 5 years of age. Is it legally adopted?— No, but I have had it ever slnce it was nine days old. It is no relation to me except that my husband is its father. Who is James? A fellow I used to live with. Is James the father of some of your children? No. I never had a child In my life. How long ago is it since you lived with James? I lived with him for two years. Did James do any work? Yes, he followed the shows and circuses for six or seven weeks. Do you say that James supported you?--Yes, he always supported me. Where did you pick up the unfortunate man, Henry, whom you married?—I met him in Christchurch. When did you get this order on your husband's pay?— A few weeks ago. When you were living with James? No, on my own. Where did you meet Giles?— My brother introduced him to me. Does he know of your bargain?— No. Are you a common prostitute?— No. Are all these women in the box common prostitutes?— No. Do they all earn a living in a proper manner? I suppose they do. Do you know that Ethel Guilford has been living with Price? Not in my house. (The fair Ethel from the box "I'm not living with Price.") Do you remember Sergeant Kelly speaking to her in your premises? Yes, he told her to keep away from me as I was a prostitute. Mr. O'Leary; Did you husband make this allotment before he left?— Yes. 21/- a week. He had been living with another woman and he made it perfectly voluntarily.

The rent-payer, Henry Giles was next put on the stand. Mr. O'Leary; Now-, you have heard Mrs Henry's explanation to the effect that you were living with her. that's true, is it not.?-— Yes. Are you in arrears with the rent?— Yes - there is so much expense with so many people coming to the house that I had to make it up, Now, did you bring two soldiers there? No, one soldier, Guilford. Is there any truth in the story, that you are touting men for prostitution? —None whatever. On the night ot the raid, did you come early?— Yes. I heard that the house wasn't being run properly so I went home to see for myself. I had to get back to work. Inspector Hendrey: Do you know that other men took men to the house - Wells, for instance? No I didn't If there was nothing wrong with the house, why did you all run away — why did you have to be pushed back into the house from the backyard? They didn't havo to push me back. Do you know that Henry is a prostitute? No. He knew nothing of motor cars; Piano - playing or any of THE GENERAL ROWDINESS as alleged. He had had a fight with Wells over the fair Rosina. Mr. O'Leary had previously contended that there was not sufficent evidonee to convict Price and Booker and they were discharged but Price was immediately pounced upon by the Crime Department and held on the charge of alleged intention or leaving the Dominion without providing. Boockcr was in the hands of the military.

THE DECISION The S.M.. after considering the facts fined Rosina Henry £3 wiih the alternative of fourteen days omprisonment for having kept a brothel - on the Idle and disorderly charge she waa convicted and ordered to come up for sentance  when called upon. Alice Hawthorn was convicted of having kept the brothel, and was ordered to come up for sentence when called upon, aa her husband was willing lo look after her. Jessie Sutherland, for having assisted in the management of the house was fined £2, with the alternative of going to gaol for 7 days. On the idle and disorderly  charge she was ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. when called upon. Ethel Florence Guilford, alias Pope was convicted of having assisted in the management of the house  and George Wells was convicted of having consorted with  reputed prostitutes. As they had been in gaol for some days they were convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. Charges against Francis Henry Gordon Guilford (who wore the King's uniform) and Henry Giles, of having consorted with prostitutes were dismissed.

Ethel Guilford married 23 May 1918  to Squire Hardy (b: abt 1881; Src: 1906; NSW Police Gazette: Charged with desertion from the HMS Pegasus; on 13 Jun 1906 he came to Wellington)

Ethel Hardy is not listed with Squire in the 1919 electoral roll - and to date, it has not been discovered where she went or what happened to her... Can you help, please?

Evening Post,  10 May 1920: The charge preferred against Squire Hardy alias Sydney Reid - he did not deny that he had stolen a money-box and contents, to the value of £2, from the house occupied by a friend Mary Ward during a visit he had made on Friday. He was ordered to pay a fine of £10 and to refund the money he stole, or to go to gaol for a month. The charge was not denied. In the kitchen, a money-box was attached to the wall and defendant removed the lid and took the money. Defendant was fined £10, in default one month's imprisonment, and was ordered to repay the money stolen.

Evening Post, 31 July 1936: Squire Hardy for making a nil return under the Unemployment Act for the week ended Nov 15, 1935, and receiving £3 4s excess relief when he had earned £3 2s 2s, was convicted and fined £3 and costs