|
a.
|
Note: {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Microsoft Sans Serif;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset2 Symbol;}} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0
Per Huntington.org Baptism Records, http://missions.huntington.org/BaptismalData.aspx?ID=2402: Francisco de Paula Lugo was baptized 02 April 1831 [Age 1 day old] Los Angeles Plaza Mission #00268. Father stated as Jose Maria Lugo, baptized Mission Santa Barbara #00252X. Mother stated as Maria Antonia Rendon, baptized Mission San Gabriel #03325X. Godparents are Maria Basilia Alanis and Jose Perez. Officiant and Recorder is Geronimo Boscana. [Grandparents stated: Matilde Cota & Ignacio Rendon, deceased; Antonio Maria Lugo & Maria Dolores Ruiz, deceased]\par
From Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Wednesday, March 30, 2011, page 7, by Roger M. Grace, http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/perspectives033011.htm: "Sutherland Serves as District Attorney at Time When the Legal System Is Primitive, Safeguards Lacking - Thomas W. Sutherland, district attorney for Los Angeles County, had done what was right in supporting an April 23, 1851, bail application by three men charged in the District Court with a double-murder. Art. I, §7 of the state Constitution provided: “All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties; unless for capital offences,when the proof is evident or the presumption great.” The offense was a capital one, but the evidence was frail. Nonetheless, release of the men was disfavored overwhelmingly by the Anglo citizenry of the City of Los Angeles which was convinced that defendants Francisco Lugo Sr. and Francisco Lugo Jr., native Californians, and Mariano Elisalde, from Sonora, Mexico, were guilty. During two days of hand-wringing tension on April 25 and 26, described in the last column, lynching of the three was a prospect…as was them being gunned down by the “Red”Irving Gang which contended that the father of the “Lugo Boys” had promised to pay them $10,000 to break the suspects out of jail, then reneged. At the hearing, the judge, the attorneys, the sheriff, the clerk, and the outlaws in the spectators’ section had come armed. Violence might well have erupted had it not been for the tranquilizing presence of the cavalry which had fortuitously shown up that morning, and whose maneuvers before and after the hearing were choreographered by the defendants’ lawyer, Joseph Lancaster Brent. Sutherland was DA of the First District, serving both San Diego and Los Angeles counties. Based on his acquiescence in the bail motion, voters in Los Angeles might well have evinced their displeasure with him had his name been on ballots here in the September election. However, legislation enacted April 29, 1851, mandated a separate DA for each county, and if Sutherland had run, it would no doubt have been in San Diego County where he and his wife and child resided. As it turned out, however, he didn’t enter the DA’s race, having gone off to San Francisco. Zooming out from the events of April 25 and 26, today’s column takes a look at what happened before and after those two historic days. What is seen is a legal system that mimicked that of the eastern United States inform, but was raw and rough in the execution. The following doesn’t have much to do with Sutherland, the current focus of this series on past DAs, but rounds out the last account. The episode started with the theft by Ute Indians of horses belonging to the Lugo Boys’ father, Jose Maria Lugo. The incident is reported in a Feb. 4, 1851, letter from Lewis Granger—who would become district attorney of Los Angeles County later in the year—to Abel Stearns, a state senator. That letter, the original of which is at the Huntington Library, advises: “The Utahs have been in the [San Bernardino] valley within a week past, and drove off all of Jose Marie Lugos[’] Caballada [herd], amounting to75 horses. Fifteen men (paisanos [in context, Californios] and Sonorans) started in pursuit, came upon the Utahs 100 miles from the Cahone [Cajon] pass, attacked them, but were repulsed with the loss of one man, a Sonoran, who fell at the first fire, pierced with five balls. Had it not been for the darkness of the night, the party in pursuit would have been all killed, as the Utahs were 50 strong, armed with rifles and revolvers. They were on guard and under arms, being no doubt apprized of the approach of the party in pursuit.” The fray, whether it occurred in the morning or at night, took place on or about Jan. 27. When it was over, the posse returned home, through the Cajon Pass, between the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains. Soon after that, dead bodies of two men and their cart and mules were discovered in the pass by soldiers. At a coroner’s inquest, Jose Maria Lugo, who had led the party that chased the Indians, as well as others in the posse, acknowledged that both coming and going, they had seen the two men. They disclaimed knowledge as to the circumstances of their deaths. The coroner’s jury proclaimed that the deaths were caused “by criminal and violent means” and it identified seven members of the posse. An inquiry commenced in the courtroom of Justice of the Peace Jonathan R. Scott. A statute provided that when an allegation was “laid before a Magistrate of a public offence, triable within the county, he must examine, on oath, the informant or prosecutor, and any witnesses he may produce,” preparatory to possible issuance of an arrest warrant. There was much testimony, but little shown by it. Then came what was either a break-through or a set-up. It’s described in a 1978 book by Roy Elmer Whitehead, “Lugo, a Chronicle of Early California”: One member of the Lugo group who had been with them while they were pursuing the Indians was Ysidio Higuera, a Sonoran who had been arrested and put in the county jail while the investigation was going on. He was accused of stealing a horse together with its expensive harness. The jailer at the time was George W.Robinson, and the defending attorney was Scott, the Justice of the Peace. On March 10 Robinson stated that Higuera had something more to say about the murder case. A deposition, dated and signed by Higuera on March 10, 1851, was then taken at the jail by one of the prosecuting attorneys; this is what Higuera testified: He had been a member of the Lugo group who had pursued the Utes into the Mojave Desert, and on their return to the south side of Cajon Pass….Jose Maria Lugo took some of the party to his ranch, but four of the group including himself [that is, Higuera] remained all night near the Pass. The other three were the two sons of Jose Maria Lugo, Francisco Lugo Senior called Chico, and Francisco Lugo Junior called Menito, and Marino Elisalde. Chico was the ringleader of the four, and asked Higuera to obtain a weapon from his home. The Lugo boys believed that they had been intentionally given false directions by the two men in camp, which had led to the ambush. The four returned to the camp of the Irishman and the Indian in the morning, Chico shot McSwiggen in the head, and they killed Sam and returned home. This new evidence changed the complexion of the case. The judge issued a warrant for the sheriff to arrest the two Lugo brothers and Elisalde and put them in jail (calabozo) located on a hill west of town overlooking the courthouse. When they arrived, they found their accuser already there and all four were put in irons. The sole evidence at that time, and to this date, against the Lugo Brothers and Elisade was the uncorroborated statement of a jailhouse informant. In my last column, I indicated that Higuera was a “convicted” horse thief. Actually, he was an \i accused \i0 horse thief, who had everything to gain by cooperating with authorities. In a slim book by Brent on the Lugo case (coupled with his account of a Civil War battle) is a recitation that Higuera—who signed the confession but was illiterate—“was never brought to trial” for any offense. But why would authorities want to frame the sons of a beloved ranch owner, one of the wealthiest men in the state? Brent had a theory, one sounding in facts and reason. Robinson, the jailer, was more than a tad biased against the Lugos. He was, in fact, suing Jose Maria Lugo and Francisco Lugo Jr., and had been the complaining witness against them in a recent criminal action. Robinson not only kept the Lugo defendants behind bars but in shackles, 24 hours a day, and denied them visitors, except Brent. The genesis of this was that Robinson’s wife had been taken into the Lugo hacienda and performed chores there; Robinson came one day to fetch her, and manhandled her; Jose Lugo and Chico Lugo subdued him with force, the latter apparently drawing a sword; and Robinson brought charges. Hand-written District Court minutes, maintained at the Seaver Center for Western Studies, show that on Oct. 18, 1850, when William C.Ferrell was DA, the Lugos were arraigned, pursuant to a grand jury indictment,for “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit great bodily harm upon the person of Robinson.” Now Sutherland bobs back into the picture. He prosecuted the Lugos before a jury,and obtained a verdict of guilty. The minutes of Feb. 15, 1851, reflect the sentence:the defendants were “each to pay a fine of two dollars and fifty cents” and “to pay the costs of prosecution.” The fine, in terms of modern dollars, was only about $72.50. It was less than a month later that Robinson, whose civil action against Jose and Menito Lugo was still pending, obtained Higuera’s purported confession implicating members of the Lugo family. Scott, Higuera’s lawyer, acting in his capacity as magistrate, issued a warrant for the arrest of the Lugo Boys and Elisalde, and the proceeding already in progress before him continued. The prosecutor was not Sutherland, but County Attorney Benjamin Hayes. (A statute provided: “In the absence of the District Attorney, the County Attorney shall...attend all examinations in his county before Magistrates, of persons charged with offences cognizable in the District Court.”) Scott found that Hayes had a case, and denied bail. Hayes was Scott’s law partner. Now who do you suppose were the lawyers representing Robinson in his civil action against Jose Lugo and a son of his? Jonathan Scott and Benjamin Hayes. At trial of that action, there was a hung jury on June 13. Historian W.W. Robinson says in his book “People vs. Lugo” that the case “drifted on for years and then, apparently, was switched to another county because Robinson’s attorney (Hayes) had become District Court judge.” A legal system was in place in those early days, but not a system of \i justice\i0 . This is evidenced not only by the foregoing, but by the official reaction to the killing on or about May 27, 1851, of John “Red” Irving and 10 members of his gang by Indians who had apparently acted as agents of the Lugos. The May 31 edition of the Los Angeles Star reports that the “bandits had gone to the ranch of Jose Maria Lugo’s” and “stole various articles.” It continues: “It is the prevailing opinion that the object was to murder the two young Lugos. Various circumstances tend to strengthen this belief. Their animosity towards the Lugos was very strong, and if they had fallen in with them, undoubtedly would have assassinated them. “Irving had been heard to say that he would take the scalps of the young Lugos, and there can be little doubt that he was bent on murder as well as plunder. “Not finding the Lugos at home, Irving left the premises, and struck into a road leading to the mountains. He must have supposed that he could gain the valley beyond, or he would never allowed himself to be surrounded in the manner which he was. “The[Indians], many of whom are domicillated at Lugos, followed up Irving’s party, and attacked them with bows and arrows and lances. Irving followed the road into a ravine, the steep banks of which prevented his egress, and here it was that the whole party was slain. Not one was left to tell the tale.” (One did survive: the gang’s first lieutenant, George Evans, whose threats to Brent were related in the last column. In a Nov. 20 issue of the Star, he is quoted as confirming that the objective had been to kill the Lugo Boys.) The May 31 article notes: “It seems probable that the Indians were impressed with the idea that they had authority to pursue these men. Years ago the authorities here gave to the chief of the Apolitans mission a direction to capture all thieves who might infest their neighborhood,and it is stated that more recently this authority has been renewed by the Judge of one of our courts.” And the outcome? A coroner’s jury found that Irving and his men “had broke into and robbed the houses of Jose Maria Lugo and [his bother] Jose Carmel Lugo, in consequence whereof they were pursued by a party of Indians of the Camilla nation, whose aid had been sought by the owners of said houses and of the stolen property, and the said deceased were killed by said Indians, after being called upon to surrender themselves, and having refused so to surrender, to be dealt with according to law.” The verdict continues: “We further find that the aid of said Indians was invoked on this occasion by Jose Carmel Lugo, as a citizen, for the protection of his own property; and that said Jose Carmel Lugo was a justice of the peace, and acted in the premises in that character. And we further find that the death of said deceased is a justifiable homicide.” The grand jury on Oct. 14, 1851, indicted the Lugo Boys and Elisalde. (They could not have been charged by information; a prosecution by that means was not authorized until the Constitution of 1879 went into effect on Jan. 1, 1880.) The sheriff could not arrest the defendants; they were in hiding. Brent recalls in his book: "There were many substantial defects in the indictment and proceedings, which nullified them, and the district court was compelled on motion to set aside the indictment.” Yet, the charges on which the defendants had been arraigned before Scott remained. On Oct. 11, 1852, the defendants presented themselves and the charges were dismissed by the county judge for lack of evidence."\par
From Findagrave Memorial #84064648: "Francisco de Paula "Menito" Lugo y Avila-Rendón was born at Los Angeles, Alta California, México, and baptized at the Los Angeles Plaza Church April 2, 1831 (LA Baptism 00268, ECPP). His birth and baptism date coincided with those of a pre-deceased brother, whose name he was given. Consequently, he was commonly referred to as "Menito" ("the younger"). He was the son of José María Lugo y Ruíz and María Antonia Avila-Rendón y Cota. He became a citizen with the transfer of sovereignty in 1848. A few months after California became a State he was arrested in March 1851 and charged with murder, along with his older brother José Francisco "Chico" Lugo and Mariano Elisalde. The trial caused quite a sensation and eventually resulted in an acquittal of all three defendants. Showing that justice already had its price in American California, Menito's grandfather, Antonio María Lugo y Martínez, paid attorney Joseph Lancaster Brent the sum of $20,000 in gold to successfully defend his grandsons. Unlike his older brother Chico, who later married and raised a family, Menito joined with other discontented Californios to pursue a life of crime. His haunts reputedly included the Sespe wilderness and Vasquez Rocks. Convicted of grand larceny in Los Angeles, he was sentenced to two years in prison in 1872. After his release from San Quentin Prison late in 1874 he returned to a life of crime and eventually disappeared from the public record after 1876. Family lore places him as an occasional visitor at the Sespe ranch of William Mutaw in the late 1870's. According to William's wife, Vicenta, the banditos were not allowed in the house, but were fed outside on the porch and slept in the barn. Mutaw's daughter Adelina later married "Menito's" nephew, Juan Osvaldo Lugo y Machado, son of his brother "Chico". (See: Robinson, Wm. W. People Versus Lugo; Dawson's Book Shop, Los Angeles, California, 1962)\par
From Homestead Blog, History stories in Los Angeles County, California, by Paul R. Spitzzeri, 04 October 2016, https://homesteadmuseum.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/read-all-about-it-the-irving-gang-massacre-of-1851/: "As the Homestead prepares to offer its fourth and final offering of 2016’s \i Curious Cases \i0 series presentations on notorious criminal events of early American-era greater Los Angeles, this post looks back at the subject of the first of this year’s programs: the Lugo Case of 1851. The incident began when the bodies of Patrick McSwiggin and a Creek Indian known only as Sam were discovered near Cajon Pass early that year. The men were teamsters for Los Angeles residents engaged in mining in the deserts of what became, two years later, San Bernardino County, but were, at the time, still within Los Angeles County. Suspicion soon rested on two brothers, Menito and Chico Lugo, of a prominent \i Californio \i0 family with extensive landholdings in the region including the Rancho San Bernardino below the pass. It was alleged that the two were leading a posse of employees and friends in search of Paiute (or Ute) Indians who raided the ranch and stole horses. While in pursuit, the claim stated, the Lugos came across McSwiggin and Sam and inquired if they’d seen Indians heading north. Supposedly they were told that there were just a few Indians passed on the road, so the Lugos continued on, only to find a much larger group than anticipated. Being forced to turn back because they were outnumbered, the Lugos, the allegation went on, took out their anger on McSwiggin and Sam and killed the pair. A few days later, a detachment of Army troops, then engaged in a series of battles with Indians in southeastern California during a brutal campaign, came upon the remains and buried them. The case against the Lugos was based almost entirely on testimony elicited from one of their employees, who was in jail on an unrelated charge of larceny. Moreover, the jailer, recently hired by the county, had been in a physical altercation with the Lugos while staying at their ranch when he and his wife were on their way to settling in Los Angeles. It may well be that the jailer sought revenge on the Lugos by getting their jailed employee to turn against them by claiming they’d killed McSwiggin and Sam. The Lugo brothers were arrested and, while they were confined in the jail (which at the time was an old adobe house with a massive log, to which prisoners were chained, laid across the dirt floor), a gang of American and European bandits, led by John “Red” Irving, rode down from the gold fields (the Gold Rush was then in full swing) on their way to Mexico. Hearing about the plight of the Lugos, Irving concocted a scheme to free them for a large sum of cash, said to be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Irving’s “indecent proposal”, however, was firmly rejected by the family and, enraged, he determined to seize and kill the brothers. According to their attorney, Joseph Lancaster Brent, whose story cannot often be corroborated, he organized a defense to protect the jail. However, another squadron of Army personnel happened to arrive in Los Angeles just as Irving was preparing to take the brothers after they left a court hearing and foiled the bandit chieftain’s plans. With his hopes for revenge thwarted, Irving rode back out to San Bernardino to take out his anger on the Lugo family. On the way, incidentally, he and his gang stole horses from William Workman here at the Homestead. Shortly after that, though, Irving decided to split his gang, sending some out to the Colorado River to wait until he and eleven other men finished their business with the Lugos, after which the gang was to proceed into Mexico for more marauding. Brent stated that he sent word ahead to warn the Lugos and, in any case, when Irving and his compatriots arrived at San Bernardino, the family had fled, leaving allies from the Cahuilla Indian tribe (principally located in and near San Gorgonio Pass near present Banning and Palm Springs) to protect their property. After a brief skirmish, Irving and his men fled southeast looking for a road to take them to the rest of the fellows. The problem was, however, that the Cahuillas were in their home territory and ably led by their chief, Juan Antonio, they pursued Irving into San Timoteo Canyon near modern Redlands. When Irving thought he found a route through the hills to get him into open plains, the Cahuillas knew he had entered a box canyon. They soon sealed off the entrance and ascended the peaks of the hills and then attacked. The result was sure, decisive and brutal. Irving and all of his men, save one who managed to hide and then escape, were quickly slaughtered. A coroner’s inquest covened to hold a hearing on the site of the massacre and determined that there was no criminal action–which seemed to indicate that the Cahuillas were acting in self-defense. Evidently, some Anglos in the region were upset that native peoples were exonerated for the killing of white men, even if the latter were hardened thieves. The item highlighted here is an excerpt of an article from the 24 July 1851 edition of the \i New York Spectator\i0 , which draws directly from the 31 May issue of the \i Los Angeles Star\i0 . The \i Star\i0 , the first newspaper published in Los Angeles, was launched just two weeks prior, so the account of the Irving Gang massacre was in just the third issue. The account stated that, after ransacking the home of two Lugo brothers, including that of José María, father of the jailed Lugo boys, the gang headed into the mountains (hills) and were followed by the Cahuillas (spelled “Cowies” in the piece) into the box canyon (described as a “ravine”, which is not the case). The article stated that the gang was struck down with arrows and then the heads of the members were mashed with rocks. As for native losses, the \i Star\i0 indicated that only one Indian was killed, though there were rumors of more, perhaps as a way to rationalize that Irving and his men had to have inflicted more damage than that. It was reported that the Cahuillas numbered some 300-400, a substantially higher number than the dozen in Irving’s gang. Notably, the Cahuillas were said to have observed that “Irving . . . fought very bravely, and was conscious throughout the engagement, encouraging his men, and charging into the very midst of his opponents.” It was reported he had five arrow wounds near his heart. Irving and his gang were said to have had $5,000 with them and these funds, along with all clothing and other possessions were removed. Notably, the paper referred to an idea held by at least some that given, however, the geography of the canyon, “those who have viewed the scene of conflict are not at all surprised at the result.” Finally, it was reported that the Cahuillas were given permission by authorities “to capture all thieves who might infest their neighborhood.” As for the Lugo brothers, there was a considerable amount of legal deficiencies in the local court system and it took another year before they were freed by county judge Agustín Olvera on the grounds of insufficient evidence. They may well have killed McSwiggin and Sam, but the unreliability of the principal witness and the lack of information about a crime that appeared in the desert vastness made Olvera’s decision the correct legal one. As for “Red” Irving and his gang of desperadoes, they met their grisly, but justifiable end in a example of native Indian justice rarely allowed or tolerated in early American California. The end of the Lugo Case was certainly a remarkable and dramatic one."\par
Per 1850 U.S. Federal census Francisco Lugo is living in Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, born abt 1834 California Son [in the household of parents Jose Maria and Maria Antonia (Rendon) Lugo and family]\par
\par
Per 1860 U.S. Federal census Francisco Lugo is living in Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, born abt 1830 California Son [in the household of parents Jose Maria and Maria A. (Rendon) Lugo and family]\par
\par
\par
\par
}
|
