The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Criminal Justice, 1852

By the terms of California's first constitution, ratified in late 1849, nearly a year before Congress belatedly bestowed statehood, the responsibility for the administration of counties was given to the Court of Sessions.

This body was headed by the county judge and assisted by two justices of the peace from among the county's townships--these latter were administrative entities aside from the incorporated towns and cities within the county.  For Los Angeles County, only the city of Los Angeles was incorporated for many years, so the outlying townships, such as El Monte, San Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, and the Los Angeles township surrounding the city, had their justice of the peace and constables charged with maintaining law and order in their jurisdiction.

The Court of Sessions not only had to try to be the governing authority for the massive county, which, while having a small population of under just under 10,000 persons, stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the Colorado River and from Ventura to San Diego counties, embracing part of which became Kern County later, but it had the bulk of the business to conduct in the administration of criminal and civil court matters, as well.  For criminal justice, the Sessions court heard all major crimes, except capital murder, rape and a few others, such as arson, though some of the types of cases changed over time.

So, while the court did its best to serve its legislated duties, it was clear from almost the beginning of its operations, starting in the very late spring of 1850, that something had to be done to divide responsibilities.  The state legislature responded by creating boards of supervisors for California's counties, with these entities to start their work in mid-1852.  Not long afterward, the decision was made to reduce Los Angeles County's incredible mass by creating San Bernardino County, which remains the largest county in size in all of America.

In the spring 1852 elections, five citizens were elected to the inaugural Board of Supervisors for Los Angeles County--and it remains that number today, which is stunning given the enormous population of the county of just under 10 million, rather than around 10,000 some 150 years ago.  These men included:

• Jefferson Hunt, a prominent member of the Mormon Battalion sent by the church from Utah to California at the end of the Mexican-American War and who, as an California assembly member introduced the legislation that created San Bernardino County, because the town of San Bernardino was then a Mormon town.  Hunt was back in Utah by 1860 and died in Idaho in 1879.
• Julián Chavez, a native of New Mexico who migrated to Los Angeles in the 1830s, who held political office from time to time between then and the early 1870s, and whose property in the hills north of downtown Los Angeles became the famed Chavez Ravine.  Chavez also died in 1879 in Los Angeles.
• Samuel Arbuckle, born in Pennsylvania, and who became a merchant and auctioneer in his many years in Los Angeles.  His sole turn in public office, however, was his one-year stint with the first cadre of supervisors.  He died in Los Angeles in 1874.
• Manuel Requena, a native of Campieto, Mexico, who came to Los Angeles in 1834 with the Hijar-Padres colony, which included the politically active Coronels and Olveras.  Requena, as already noted on this blog, was a member of the first common (city) council in Los Angeles and served at the same time as a supervisor--something that could be done in those days.  He served many terms as a council member and was briefly mayor, but served only two years as a supervisor.  Requena died in 1876.
• F.P.F. Temple, who was the only supervisor not born in the first decade of the century, being born in 1822 in Reading, Massachusetts near Boston.  He came to Los Angeles in 1841 to join a half-brother, Jonathan, often mentioned in this blog, and worked in his brother's store.  Married into the Workman family of Rancho La Puente in the eastern San Gabriel Valley, Temple was the second Los Angeles city treasurer. He, too, served a single term with the supervisors and was county treasurer in 1876-78, during which time his bank failed, leaving him the dubious distinction of being the only bankrupt treasurer (albeit with a deputy doing the day-to-day work)!

The first meeting was held on 5 July 1852, but basically only to present the certification of the election of the five supervisors.  Two weeks later, on the 19th, with Temple absent, the board conducted its initial business, including ordering a proposal to be advertised in the Los Angeles Star newspaper for a new jail.  The notice offered that the successful bidder would receive half the determined amount in cash for construction upon completion, but the other half in scrip (basically,an I.O.U. payable when the county had the money).  Proposals were due on 4 August.

On the meeting of that day (with Temple again absent), the board dealt with the matter of the existing contract with George Robinson, the jailor--namely, it ordered it canceled and a new one drawn up.  The provisions were that he be given $3 per day, half in cash and half in, you guessed it, scrip (no wonder that the performance of local officials was often questionable, to say the leased, if part of your compensation was provisional on available future funding!)  The agreement also specified that the jailor receive 50 cents a day for candles and two loads of wood per month, as well as 25 cents a day per person for food for prisoners.

F.P.F. Temple (1822-1880), with his son, John, about 1858, was on the first Los Angeles County of Board of Supervisors, though frequently absent during the first part of the abbreviated term, which lasted all of four months.  From the Workman and Temple Family Homestead Museum collection.

A special meeting of the 5th (again, Temple was not present), had a number of claims presented by officials for payment by the county.  Justice of the Peace J.S. Mallard requested $87 for attending as an associate justice at the Court of Sessions.  George T. Burrill, who was the first county sheriff, was in 1852 the county coroner and the other associate justice at the Sessions court and asked for $96 for the two offices.  Constable William B. Osburn, a veteran lawman in Los Angeles, requested $81.10. Current sheriff James R. Barton, murdered while on duty in 1857, placed his claims for $29,50 for general duties and $152 for attending the Sessions court as, basically, a bailiff, as well as serving summonses for trial and grand juries.  Notably, the board only approved $25 for the jury work and stated the remainder of his $127 court claims were invalid as not allowable by law.  Through his attorneys, Jonathan R. Scott and Lewis Granger, Barton filed an exception and it is not known what happened to that action.

The following day, the 6th (guess who wasn't there?), more officials came looking for payment.    Robinson asked for over $500 for various services, including guarding prisoners, candles, wood, and "feeding lunatics", among others.  There isn't a record, though, of what Robinson was given.  Lewis Granger, who served as the district attorney in 1851 and 1852, was actually ordered to remit $375 back to the county, evidently because of overpayment for his services.

On 30 August (yup, Temple did show up for this meeting and one prior), the board was presented with the offer of the successful jail contractor.  J.D. Hunter, a Mormon Battalion captain who came to town with Hunt in 1847, was awarded the contract, which called for him to be paid $3,000 in cash up front and $4,000 in cash when the work was done--obviously, the whole scrip matter was dispensed with, probably because no one would bid on a project with that provision.  Hunter, who offered a bond of $14,000 as security for the contact, was given nine months to finish the work.

As a fall election was on the docket, mid-September business for the board included confirming the existing townships of Los Angeles, San Gabriel, San Jose (present Pomona area), San Bernardino (soon to be spun off in the new county), Santa Ana (before the town in present Orange County was created but in the general area), and San Juan Capistrano.   Then, a new one, San Salvador, which embraced the former Agua Mansa community of principally New Mexican settlers, who came to the area in the early 1840s, was created in what later became Riverside County.

At the 15 September meeting, Dr. Alpheus P. Hodges, who had been Los Angeles' first mayor and coroner, presented a bill for $420, constituting 84 visits to the jail at $5 each.  Hodges, who only served a single one-year term as mayor, remained in town for a few years before returning to his native Virginia, where he died in 1858 at only 36 years of age.

Among the later business of the first board were more official claims for payment, including $230.50 for Sheriff Barton "allowed on mandamus and costs."  What mandamus essentially means is that Barton was negligent, intentionally or not, in carrying out his legally mandated duties, so a court order was issued to force him to do the work required.  The details are not known, but it is possible Barton chose not to carry out these duties because his previous claims for work had been rejected by the board, but this is only speculation. 

The abbreviated first term of the inaugural Board of Supervisors came to a close in mid-November, when the newly elected group of five were seated (Requena, the only incumbent seeking reelection narrowly lost his attempt to retain his seat).  These included:

• David W. Alexander, born in Ireland in 1811 and who migrated to California in 1842 from New Mexico.  Alexander was a merchant and rancher, who served twice as county sheriff in 1856 (resigning abruptly, probably because of a near riot that summer) and again in 1876-77.  He died in 1876
• Leonardo Cota, a native of Mexico who married into the prominent Yorba family and who was a captain in the Californio defense forces during the American invasion of 1846-47 alongside his cousin, General Andrés Pico, playing a valuable role in the Battle of San Pasqual victory over the Americans.  Cota was later a founder of Santa Ana and died in 1887.
• G.A. Sturgis is something of a mystery figure, there being almost no information about him, except that he served a single term from November 1852 to November 1853 on the board.
• Daniel M. Thomas was born in North Carolina about 1817 and came to Los Angeles from Utah, so he was likely a Mormon.  He was a farmer, but little else is known about Thomas, who also served a single term.
• Benjamin D. Wilson, of whom volumes can be (and have been) written.  Born in 1811 in Tennessee, Wilson spent eventful years in New Mexico, before coming to California in late 1841 intent on going to China.  Literally missing the boat, he bought the Rancho Jurupa in the present Riverside area, married into the Yorba family, like fellow supervisor Cota, and became exceptionally prominent in politics (serving, for example, as Los Angeles mayor and a state senator, as well as a federal Indian agent), ranching and business, and other enterprises.  He died in 1878.

The next post will pick up the work of the second set of supervisors for the remainder of 1852 and most of 1853.

The Big House IV: San Quentin State Prison and Los Angeles County Inmates

The fifth Los Angeles County resident sent up "to the big house" at San Quentin State Prison was Atanacio Moreno, who arrived at the facility on 10 April 1854, and whose story was told here in an April post.

Moreno was followed by an Indian named Juan Chapo, who was delivered to San Quentin on 4 August.  Juan Chapo was tried before the District Court on a charge of manslaughter because, as recorded in the diary of that court's jurist, Benjamin Hayes, he was "indicated for killing an Indian woman.  He was in a deep state of intoxication at the time.  It occurred at Mr. Jno Roland's."

This was the ranch of John Rowland, owner of some 24,000 acres comprising half of the massive Rancho La Puente in the eastern San Gabriel Valley.  Rowland had a large population of Gabrieleño Indians working for him and Juan Chapo was undoubtedly one of the ranch's laborers.

The register listing for prisoner #414 at San Quentin State Prison, Juan Chapo, a Gabrieleño Indian who pled guilty to killing Anselma, an Indian woman, during a drunken state and sentenced to one year and a $1 fine based on "an excellent character."  Click on the images to see them enlarged in separate windows.

Hayes did not provide any further information concerning the circumstances of the killing of the woman, named as Anselma in court documents, but he did note that "an excellent characer [was] proved for him."  Consequently, Hayes went on, "the Court sentenced him to one year in the state prison" after Juan Chapo pled guilty.  Strangely, Hayes also pronounced a fine of $1.

It is also notable that, in the San Quentin register, there is no occupation listed nor are there the physical descriptions of heights, complextion, and color of eyes and hair usually given.  The only other notation was that Juan Chapo was discharged a couple of weeks early on 22 July 1855 and then faded from history.

The other prisoner confined at San Quentin around this time was a notable character in Los Angeles:  José Serbulo Varela.  Varela was from an old, established family in town, dating back to its early Spanish-era period.  During the Mexican-American War, he served in the Californio forces defending the town and region against the American invasion.

In 1846, when a cadre of Americans, who gathered for mutual protection at the Rancho Santa Ana del Chino's adobe home of its owner Isaac Williams, on what is now the grounds of Boys Republic, a troubled youth facility in Chino Hills, were captured, there was a serious consideration of executing the group.  This included the John Rowland mentioned above, as well as prominent Angeleno Benjamin D. Wilson, namesake of Mount Wilson, and others.

Varela, however, refused to consider the idea and told his fellow Californios that they would have to kill him before trying to take out revenge against the American prisoners, who were held for a substantial period before finally being released.  From that point forward, Varela, it was said, was held in the highest esteem by Americans, to the point that, whenever he fell afoul of the law, which was often, he was invariably bailed out and released.

Jose Serbulo Varela, a hero to many Anglos for his defense of Americans captured at the Battle of Chino and threatened with summary execution in 1846 during the Mexican-American War, was convicted of perjury and sentenced to a year at San Quentin, registering as prisoner #400.  Varela was found murdered in an irrigation ditch in 1860.

Charged for petty larceny and perjury in a crime against Santiago Feliz, of the family which owned the Los Feliz Rancho northwest of downtown Los Angeles, Varela was acquitted of the larceny charge, but convicted of perjury, evidently in his sworn statement of what took place in the matter with Feliz.

On 16 June 1854, he was sentenced to a year at San Quentin and registered ten days later as prisoner #400.  The 5'5 1/2" Varela, listed as 41 years of age and with dark complexion, hair and eyes and with the occupation as a laborer, served out his term and was discharged, presumably on or just before 26 June 1855.

Varela, who was said to be a drunkard, continued to attract trouble, but was always put out on his liberty because of his conduct at Chino, until his luck ran out in September 1860, when he was stabbed to death and his body found in the zanja madre (the mother ditch used for irrigation in town) at Los Angeles.

The Big House III: San Quentin State Prison and Los Angeles County Inmates

The third and fourth convicts from Los Angeles County sent up to San Quentin State Prison were Firman Valdez (July 1853) and Jose A. Rodriguez (March 1854).

Valdez was tried before the county judge and two associate justices at the Court of Sessions on 2 June 1853 on the charge of assault with the intent to kill in the stabbing of Jesus Parada.  The Los Angeles Star of the 8th only noted that, "the Court of Sessions met on Monday, and passed sentence upon Firman Valdez, convicted of assault with intent to kill; one year in the State prison.

The "Register and Descriptive List of Convicts Under Sentence of Imprisoment in the State Prison of California" lists Valdez as prisoner number 233.  Arriving on 10 July, Valdez was described as 5'7" with a dark complexion and black hair and eyes.  He had a scar across his left cheek and nose, a stiff  left hand, and a "scar from a bullet on left arm and left side."  Clearly, Valdez had been in a number of fights in this lifetime!

The "Register and Descriptive List of Convicts Under Sentence of Imprisonment in the State Prison of California" at San Quentin lists prisoner 233, Firman Valdez, sentenced to a year for an assault with the intent to kill (incorrectly listed as "murder") in a case from Los Angeles County.  Click on either image to see them enlarged in a separate window.

The 40-year old laborer, a native of Mexico, was listed as being convicted of murder, though this clearly was an error.  For one thing, a murder conviction would have brought a death sentence and a hanging back in Los Angeles, instead of the one-year term for the assault to commit murder.  He evidently served his full term, because the comments section on the list merely reads "Discharged" with no date given.

On 22 February 1854, Jose A. Rodriguez, charged with an assault with the intent to kill Francisco Machado, was convicted in case 161 om the District Court, presided over the Judge Benjamin Hayes, with the lesser charge of assault with the intent to commit bodily harm and sentenced to a term of one year in prison.

However, on the complaint of county jailer George Whitehorne, Rodriguez and Manuel Garcia were defendants in the next case, number 162, held on 24 February at the Court of Sessions, with the charge of setting fire to the county jail.  Notably, the jury found both men not guilty of this crime.

Legal proceedings having ended, Rodriguez was sent up to San Quentin, arriving on 15 March.  Recorded as prisoner 347, he was identified as a 23-year old vaquero, a California native, and as 5'4 and 3/4" with a dark complextion and dark (presumably black) hair and eyes.

This is the San Quentin register listing for prisoner 347, Jose A. Rodriguez, committed for an assault to commit bodily harm (incorrectly listed as "assault to murder") in a case from Los Angeles County.

Again, the listing of his crime was in error, because he was shown as being convicted of "Assault with attempt to commit murder," rather than the "intent to commit bodily harm" which was reflected on his District Court case envelope.

The physical description of Rodriguez included scars on the right side of his nose, on his left ear and on the right waist, but also "an indentation on right side of head," which leads to the question of how that physical feature was created.

The next two convicts sent up to San Quentin from Los Angeles County oin 1854 were notable figures for very different reasons, so check back for the next installment of "The Big House."

The Big House II: San Quentin State Prison and Los Angeles County Inmates

In April 1853, the second and third Los Angeles County prisoners to become inmates at San Quentin State Prison (and the 195th and 196th overall) were shipped up and admitted to the new facility.

Henry King and Juan, an Indian, were both tried in the Court of Sessions, presided over by the county judge and two associates selected from among the justices of the peace in the townships outside Los Angeles.

King was under indictment for grand larceny against a person or persons unidentified in the surviving court docket and was convicted on 6 April.  He was sentenced to two years at San Quentin.  Juan, was convicted of the rape of Juana Ybarra, on the following day, the 7th.  Although the docket does not indicate sentence, the San Quentin register recorded it as eight years.

A 38-year old native of Pennsylvania, King's occupation was millwright, which traditionally meant someone who was involved in the construction of water or wind mills, but who could also have done work on textile mills, agricultural machinery and other types of work involving the use of machinery in production.  The 5'5" convict was described as having scars on his chin and neck near his throat, as well as both legs and two warts on his right hand.

Juan was a 21-year old, 5' 5 1/4" in height, and described as having a "broad nose, thick lips, scar right side of nose, large scar on head."  His occupation was "vaquaro" or vaquero.

Notably, while King was listed as having been discharged, though with no specific date, Juan had no such comment in his listing, leading to the question of what happened to him.

The San Quentin State Prison register page showing inmates 195 and 196, Juan, an Indian and Henry King, both sent up from Los Angeles for convictons on 6-7 April 1853 and processed on the 16th.  From Ancestry.com

King's crime of grand larceny was among the most common found in both the San Quentin register for Los Angeles County-based inmates and in the surviving county court records.

In a review of over 1,200 court cases between 1850 and 1875, it was found that larcenies (including grand, which involved over $50 in property value, and petit [petty] for less than that amount) constituted about one-third of all crimes.

The San Quentin register of Los Angeles County-based convicts showed that almost half of the 168 men sent there prior to 1865 were sent there because of grand larcenies.  For the total of 354 to the end of 1875, the number was about 45%.

Rape, the crime for which Juan was found guilty, was, however, far less frequent.

Only 11 of the 354 Los Angeles County inmates at San Quentin were there for rape convictions, forming but 3% of the total.  Of course, it has to be stated that rape was almost certainly a crime that was scarcely reported, much less prosecuted, largely because women were highly unlikely to alert officials to the crime.

In the court records, there were fifteen men charged with rape or assault to commit rape prior to 1865.  For the decade from 1865-1875, there were thirteen cases of rape or assault to commit rape, with one example, in 1873, comprising a charge of a "crime against nature" regarding a male defendant and male victim.  In all, about 2% of all criminal cases in existing records involved rape charges.

As Los Angeles grew, but, more importantly, as its courts began to secure more convictions, the number of men sent to San Quentin grew.  From 1852-55, only 14 men were sent up to the "big house," a number equaled in 1856 alone.  Future posts will deal with more Los Angeles County convicts sent to San Quentin, so check back here for more on that fascinating subject.

Los Angeles County Criminal Courts

From the establishment of Los Angeles County in Spring 1850, the court system in the region had essentially three levels for criminal matters.

At the lowest end of the spectrum was the mayor's court in Los Angeles and the justice courts in the town and outlying townships.  In these busy, but routine and continuously-operating, tribunals, the town's mayor and a justice of the peace would hear minor infractions of the law, including public drunkenness, disturbances of the peace and other petty crimes.  These cases, usually decided quickly during a session during the day or evening, garnered little attention.

Above these was the Court of Sessions, renamed the County Court by the mid-1860s, which heard almost all other criminal business, excepting the most serious of felonies.  It was so named because this court had terms specified by the legislature during the year.  The tribunal originally had a county judge presiding with the assistance of two of the justices of the peace from the county's townships.

This court also dealt with most of the civil cases held in the region and, for two years (1850-1852) was the governing body of Los Angeles County.  When this proved totally unworkable, it was decided to create boards of supervisors for each California county.

So, most cases involving property crimes and assault and battery prosecutions were heard by the sessions court, which kept the tribunal plenty busy and, usually, though not always, somewhat below the radar in terms of public attention.

This short article from the Los Angeles Star's edition of 6 March 1852 lamented the fact that the criminal cases arising from Court of Sessions were set aside due to imprecision in meeting the technical standards of state law.  This was hardly unique to this particular time, as inexact procedural processes plagued the system, leading to the overturning of verdicts, as well as the setting aside of cases generally, as was the case here.

Grand larcenies, serious assaults (intent to kill, with a deadly weapon, etc.), rape, and the several forms (manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder) of homicide were usually (for a time, arson cases were heard at this level) the province of the District Court.

Whereas the other courts were operating within the county, the District Court had its jurisdiction in a much wider area througout southern California until the 1870s, when the court's district was within the confines of Los Angeles County (which did include what is now Orange County.)  That is, the district judge "rode circuit" holding legislatively-mandated terms in the county seats of the several regional counties.

The size of the district changed several times, so that, in earlier days, the judge might preside in cases as far north as San Luis Obispo and as far south as San Diego.  Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Bernardino counties were generally part of the First District, as well, though, again, the district shrunk in size as it grew in population.

Presiding over the most heinous of crimes, the District Court was given much more attention by the press and other observers.  It also had the problem of presiding over those cases that had the highest standards applied to criminal matters, so that convictions could be maddeningly few, especially those involving homicides, in which a unanimous verdict by the jury was mandated.  A lack of forensics, spotty evidence, and missing witnesses were among the hindrances to securing convictions for some of the most serious crimes committed in the area.

This blog will cover more detail on court operations, including how cases were prosecuted in court, who the prominent attorneys and district attorneys were, who the judges were, and how court cases files, even with their minimal contents (as governed by statuete), can give us a provisional view into the operations of the court system in the early days of the common law system in Los Angeles.

So, check back for more in coming weeks and months!