by Paul R. Spitzzeri
Wolfskill descendant Joan Hedding’s recent donation of a settee to the Homestead does not just provide us a beautiful piece of furniture, but it also is a visual reminder of the close ties between the Wolfskills and the Workman and Temple family during the time that it was made and used. While it is not known whether it was in the Wolfskill family adobe, located amid California’s first commercial orange grove, or was in the Bunker Hill residence, built in the late 1870s, of Francisca Wolfskill de Shepherd, it is a palpable link to our regional history.
As part one of this post noted, William Wolfskill (1798-1866), was an early Anglo resident of Mexican Los Angeles, settling there in 1830 after traveling on the newly established Old Spanish Trail from New Mexico (the same route that the Workman family took just over a decade later to get here) and just two years after Jonathan Temple migrated to the Angel City. Aside from his orchard property, situated east of Alameda Street, west of San Pedro Street and between 2nd Street on the north to 7th Street on the south, Wolfskill amassed large ranch properties in the San Gabriel Valley and what is now Orange County.
His surviving children included sons José (Joseph) and Luis (Lewis) and daughters Magdalena and Francisca, who were bequeathed portions of his substantial estate and with Joseph and Francisca dividing the orchard property between them. For a decade, Francisca owned her half, which was mentioned in accounts included in part one and praised for their quality under her management.
In June 1876, at age 33, she married Charles J. Shepherd, a Michigan native who lived in Petaluma in northern California before settling in Los Angeles, where was a telegraph operator. He also partnered with Lewis Wolfskill and F.P.F. Temple in business and political interests and Lewis likely introduced him to his sister. Not long after the wedding, Francisca and Charles built a substantial home along First Street atop a steep portion of what is now Bunker Hill.
While the two appear to have been separated when they were counted in different locations in the 1880 census, they welcomed a daughter, Mary, in 1883 as their prosperity grew markedly in subsequent years, though she died of diphtheria at age 8. Greater Los Angeles underwent its first significant growth period in the late 1860s through mid-1870s, but the regional economy collapsed in 1875-1876, including the failure of the Temple and Workman bank, amid a national downturn, often called the Long Depression.
Matters began to slowly improve during the early 1880s, but, when a direct transcontinental railroad link was made to the region at the end of 1885, the Boom of the Eighties, much larger and consequential than the earlier one, erupted and largely occurred during the administration of Los Angeles Mayor William H. Workman. The fortunes of the Shepherds were, of course, largely dependent on the financial shifts taking place during the first dozen or so years of their marriage.
Even when the economy was in a generally moribund state, Francisca bought property under her own name, though whether her husband played a role in some or all of these is not known. In June 1877, she purchased six-and-a-half acres from her brother-in-law, Francisco Sabichi and, two months later, she bought two lots in the recently established town of Santa Monica from its founders, Robert S. Baker and John P. Jones. For $20,000, she acquired from Luis a valuable property on the west side of Main Street next to the Farmers’ and Merchants’ Bank and a lot owned by ex-Governor John G. Downey.
In October 1888, as the boom was devolving into a bust, she purchased, for just over $6,000, school bonds issued by the city of Anaheim, which, months later, became part of the new Orange County carved out of the south and south-eastern sections of Los Angeles County. In 1892, she was the plaintiff in a foreclosure suit against Juan José (Jonathan Trumbull) Warner, another early American resident of Los Angeles and others on a loan of nearly $2,000 to which property in Los Angeles was pledged as collateral.
Her accumulated property, when official assessments were conducted in summer 1889 (when the bust was fully underway), totaled north of $40,000, which was not an insubstantial sum for the time, especially for a woman. The biggest change to her holdings, and that of Joseph, was when the siblings decided, during the boom and as the city was expanded rapidly to the south and southeast, to subdivide and sell the Wolfskill Orchard Tract, as it was known, after about a half-century of family ownership.
When financial conditions improved following another dark period during the Depression of 1893, Francisca constructed a two-story brick building at the southeast corner of San Pedro and 6th streets, in the vicinity of the old orchard tract, expending some $15,000 on the structure. Few women undertook building projects at the time and the structure remained for decades, including after her death when it was managed by her estate.
Later in life, she loaned $30,000 to the prominent Del Valle family with a mortgage taken on nearly 2,000 acres of their famed Rancho Camulos in Ventura County and this was released following her death. Also of interest was the contribution she and her brother Joseph made of items, including an American centennial coin she purchased when attending the Philadelphia event in 1876 along with ancient coins and his medal for prize-winning citrus grown on the Wolfskill orchard, deposited in the February 1890 laying of the cornerstone of the Sisters of Charity Orphans Asylum in Boyle Heights
Francisca also proved formidable and tenacious when the City of Los Angeles decided, at the end of the 1880s boom, to level a portion of Bunker Hill to provide easier access along First Street to new subdivisions built at the western end of the city, the boundary of which was along Hoover Street. What was known as the “First Street Cut” raised her ire, because of her concerns about property losses including value, with the Los Angeles Tribune of 26 October 1889 remarking:
Aggressive warfare will be commenced this morning looking to the grading and opening of First street through to the west line of Olive street. This involves the cutting away of the immense bluff or hill beginning at Hill street and extending to the Olive street grade. City Attorney [Charles H.] MacFarland has had the paper in the suit ready for two months, but has withheld action at the request of the property-owners, who were in hopes that a compromise could be effected with Mrs. Shepherd whereby a better grade could be established.
The lawsuit was against many more area residents beyond Francisca, including those with such prominent surnames as Bradbury, Burbank, Dockweiler, Kalisher and Orme, as well as the city’s Board of Trade, the Los Angeles Produce Exchange and the California Bank. The article, however, noted that the city signed a contract in March with street grader Daniel F. Donegan, but “that on the suit of Francisca W. de Shepherd proceedings were stopped by an injunction issued by Judge [Walter] Van Dyke.” This led the City to declare that the project was a public need and establish an assessment district along First from Main to Hope streets to pay for the work.
Two-and-a-half years later, in February 1892, a summons was issued by the Superior Court in the suit of The City of Los Angeles vs. Mary Carmona Adams, et. al., and the list of defendants comprised over 150 persons. The document observed that “the said action is brought to ascertain the damages caused to private property by reason of the grading and regarding of” not just First Street, but also Bunker Hill Avenue, Flower Street, Grand Avenue and Olive Street.” Obviously, anyone not heeding the summons and who did not “assert any damage to them by reason of such improvement” would have a judgment rendered against them disallowing any claim to recovery of money from any damage to their properties.
Four years dragged along until the City appeared before Judge Van Dyke and, as reported by the Los Angeles Times of 18 November 1893, to submit “an application for the modification of the injunction [that seemed like enough -tions!], so that it shall extend in front of Mrs. Shepherd’s property only to the middle of the street.” Later, it was reported that this petition was “accompanied by strong evidence from efficient civil engineers” so that “the court granted the motion, and allowed the city to proceed with the work on the south half of the street” across from Francisca’s property.
Two years later, a letter writer to the paper with Charles H. Willson, in the 6 November 1895 edition, complaining, “the First-street cut lags and lags. The chain-gang [of city prisoners] was withdrawn two or three months ago, and not a stroke of work has been done since.” He added that “there is no earthly reason why the completion of the cut should be delayed, and the Councilmen from the Second and Third wards should have vigorously opposed the withdrawal of the chain-gang.”
The editorial staff responded that there was danger of the collapse of the hill on the north side of First, risking the lives of chain-gang members, and the removal of them led to the observation that,
That cause seemed unavoidable under the circumstances, inasmuch as the owner of the abutting property on that side, Mrs. C.J. Shepherd, is at law with the city and will make no concessions in the way of permitting the crumbling bank to be caved down from the top, by which the danger could be averted, to the advantage of the property and of the city.
The prior March, reported the Los Angeles Herald, Francisca filed a suit against the City demanding $50,000 in compensation for the effect of the cut on her property and she added that her house was built after an 1875 grading of First between Hill and Olive—this was done by developer and future mayor Prudent Beaudry as part of his Bunker Hill project—and that the residence was constructed and “conformed to the grade.”
She stated in the complaint, “after she had purchased the place she made many improvements to the premises, which were easy of access by means of winding paths down the hill along First street to Olive and Hill streets.” Moreover, a new grade was effected in April 1880 and lowered substantially (22 feet on Hill and Olive streets and 70 feet “on the apex of the hill”). She also remarked that work was conducted in 1893 “after the courts had had the matter in hand under various forms.”
This included “a cut in front of her property on First street, at least sixty feet in depth . . . so that all access [to her house] is shut off from it to the street below” and, during the excavating, ten feet of her land slid onto the street. The dirt and gravel, which she claimed was worth $5,000, was taken by the City, and she concluded that she would be forced to build a retaining wall to protect her property at the substantial sum of $30,000 “and even then her property will be greatly depreciated.”
The First Street Cut matter was finally and fully adjudicated early in 1897, with the Times of 13 February informing readers,
The city of Los Angeles won a suit yesterday which involved a greater sum of money, was of more importance, and interested more people than any suit has done since the water suits that were tried a couple of years ago . . .
The suit was finally brought to trial the first of this week . . . the jury was out less than an hour and rendered an [sic] unanimous verdict [three ballots went from four jurors siding with Francisca, to one and then the final clean sweep]. . .
The outcome of this litigation is all the more interesting and important in view of the fact that the hilly nature of the city compels the municipal authorities, in numerous instances, to make cuts and excavations in order to get any streets in certain localities. This decision is of especial prominence as it is concerning the largest cut ever made by the city.
The paper also noted that there were several other lawsuits of a similar character in the Bunker Hill and Boyle Heights areas, but “the Shepherd suit was by far the most serious . . . being much the hardest fought . . . and having much the most money back of it.” It was added that work was undertaken, not just by the chain gang of prisoners from the city jail, but by the “army of the unemployed.”
Moreover, the Times noted that “as the work neared completion the property of Mrs. Shepherd began to cave in, and the gravel and dirt to fall into the street. As fast as it filled up the roadway, it was carted away and the street cleared.” The paper asserted that, contrary to her claims and clarified by expert witnesses in the trial, “the property of Mrs. Shepherd was increased rather than decreased” in value.” The significance of the project was described as being that,
This cut furnished an outlet for an immense number of people whose homes and property lie west of the great mound of earth which was an absolute barrier to any immediate intercourse with the business portion of the city. The impassable hill divided one section of the city from another like a great Chinese wall, and was a serious drawback to property-owners, on account of the fact that not only values of real estate on First street, but in all that vicinity west of the hill, were reduced to a merely nominal figure.
Notably, the fight between Francisca and the City was of historical significance, not just because of what it did at the time to reveal the issues of the expansion of Los Angeles and connection of its central business district to immediately outlying suburban sections, but for what it portended for future major transformation of the city’s downtown landscape, including the controversial post-World War II remaking of Bunker Hill, the forced removal of Latino residents at Chávez Ravine for the construction of Dodger Stadium and the carving up of much of Boyle Heights for the building of freeways.
Despite her loss, Francisca would experience further prosperity, despite more personal tragedy to come, and we’ll return tomorrow with part three, so come back and join us for that.