In the winter of 1919, Judge Joseph Sawicki was suddenly confronted with a perplexing problem in his Cleveland, Ohio courtroom.

A love triangle case was brought before him. 28-year-old Goldie Drossos had taken her three children and abandoned her well-off husband and their comfortable family home in Columbus to move to Cleveland with a man named John Buttery.

But why? The judge asked. Why would Mrs. Drossos leave her husband, the father of her three children, and the pleasant home they shared?  Had she done this merely to live in a cheap tenement in Cleveland with Mr. Buttery?

Goldie Drossos claimed it was a case of “higher love” and repeated, “You cannot understand, Judge. Only a woman can understand some things in love.”

While this sort of line could’ve justifiably irritated Sawicki, the judge surprised everyone. “All right,” he said. “I’ll bring some women into the case.” The faces in the courtroom turned to stare at the bench in confusion. Women could not serve on a jury in Ohio.

Sawicki called eight prominent Cleveland women and asked them to serve as an advisory jury–though their verdict could not be considered legally binding. That the judge was curious enough to dig into the case this way is surprising but it’s even more interesting that the women agreed to be advisory jurors. People get annoyed when they are called for regular Jury Duty. Can you imagine being called to serve on a pretend jury?

Yet the women seemed happy to participate.  Maybe because the case was interesting. It was presented to them from three sides: that of Mrs. Drossos, Mr. Drossos, and Mr. Buttery.

Mrs. Drossos’ testimony was: “My husband was cruel. He didn’t treat me right and I didn’t love him. I married him when I was 15. I didn’t know what I was doing.” Her life had been an unhappy one, and her husband gave her very little money.  “Then I met John,” she sighed. “He was in soldier’s uniform. There the deeper love was born. I met him again. The lovebonds tightened. He was kind and understanding. He gave me money to provide my children with clothing. My husband knew this and he said, ‘Get all you can out of him!'”

“When I met Mr. Buttery it was a case of love at first sight. He loved me. He was kind to me. He was poor, but that didn’t matter to me. I came away with him because I loved him and because I didn’t love my husband. We took the three children.”

 

Mr. Drossos spoke next. “I love my wife. I have loved her all along. I provided well for my family. I bought an automobile for them. I bought a fine six-room house for them. I never abused my wife. We had quarrels occasionally, but not big quarrels. Everything went all right until the other man showed up.”

Mr. Buttery testified, “I love her. Her husband didn’t treat her right. I’ll adopt the children and marry her if her husband will divorce her.”

During deliberations, male jurors were typically provided with cigars as they discussed the case but the judge decided that would not do for the lady jurors. They were served chocolate instead. After deliberating less than an hour, the women returned to the courtroom.

Mrs. Drossos was confident her own sex would understand why she had run away with Mr. Buttery. The verdict, therefore, was a shock: “We find the defendants, Mrs. Goldie Drossos and John Buttery, guilty,” announced Mrs. H. L. Parmenter, the jury foreman.

The jury recommended Mrs. Drossos be allowed to keep her youngest child, who was still an infant, but the other two should be returned to their father in Columbus. They recommended the maximum sentence for Mr. Buttery.

Judge Sawicki did not like the recommendation. He wished the couple would reconcile. He turned to Mr. Drossos. “Will you take your wife back?” he asked.

“Sure I will,” Drossos said readily.

“And will you go back to your husband and children?” the judge asked Goldie.

“Never!” she declared.

The judge sentenced Mrs. Drossos and Mr. Buttery to three months in the workhouse and fined each of them $200 (approx. $3,500 in 2024).  He gave Goldie a final chance, offering to suspend her sentence if she would go back to her husband.

“I won’t go back to him,” Goldie said firmly, but she was in tears as she left the courtroom. “My God! I thought women would understand. But those women never had to choose between the man they loved and an unloved husband. Of course they couldn’t understand!”

“Oh, yes, we understood,” one of the women said. “Our understanding was based on knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. We also understood the husband’s side, the children’s side, and society’s side. They call it a triangle, but it isn’t. It has more sides to it than three.”

I couldn’t find anything more about this case after Mrs. Drossos and Mr. Buttery were sentenced. I wonder how Mr. Drossos got on. I imagine it was pretty embarrassing for everyone to know his wife had run off with a man named Mr. Buttery.

I have a little unique insight to offer into this case. Once upon a time, I also lived in a tenement style apartment building in Cleveland, Ohio and winter there is no joke. If nothing else, the fact that Goldie voluntarily moved there is proof that she sincerely loved Mr. Buttery!