It is unclear what became of the marriage of James Shiland and Julia Achard.   They were married  9 March 1901, but in the 1902 city directory for San Francisco there is no listing for James Shiland, only a listing for “Achard J.A. Mrs., widow, midwife, 415A, 3d.”[1]  As I mentioned earlier, even while she was married to Edward Matthews she appears in public records under the name Achard which she appears to have uses in her midwifery practice.   James Shiland died 24 August 1905 in the City and County Almshouse in San Francisco.  There is no mention of Julia in his obituary.[2]

Julia lived in San Francisco for a few more years, moving to Oakland perhaps after the 1906 earthquake.  In August 1904 her son, Louis passed away in Oakland at the home of his brother, David Monroe.[3]  In 1907 she hosted an anniversary dinner party for the first anniversary of David and his wife, Henriette.[4]

Julia returned to Lodi where she was married to husband number six, Allen Denison, on 30 May 1908.  Her son, Fred Wermuth, was one of the witnesses at the wedding.[5]  In the 1909 city directory Julia is listed under the name Julia Denison with both a residence listing and a business listing under MIDWIVES.  She is living at 853 Center and Allen is listed at 865 Center in 1909.[6]  By 1910, Julia is living as Julia A. Achard again at 865 Center and Allen does not appear in the directory.[7]  For the 1910 census, Julia goes by Julia A. Achard and is listed as head of household with no mention of Allen Denison.[8]

For the next two years Julia appears in the directories as a midwife in Oakland, widow of Milton.  From 1913 to 1916 she resides in Lodi, and appears to live near David and Henriette Monroe.  By late 1917 Julia has moved back to Oakland, where she is listed as a physician in the 1918 Oakland city directory.  She passed away at Oakland Central Hospital 26 January 1918.  As much as was printed about the events in the lives of Julia and her family in the newspapers, her death went entirely unnoticed.  I have found no obituary in Oakland, San Francisco or Stockton. 
 
 


[1] Fold3.com, City Directories for San Francisco, California, 1902, H S Crocker Company, page 164, accessed 5 March 2013

[2] San Francisco Chronicle, 26 August 1905, page 13, col 7 “Deaths”

[3] Oakland Tribune 2 August 1904, page 3, “Death of Louis Monroe”; Husted's Oakland, Alameda and Berkeley Directory, 1904, page 328, listing for Monroe, David H.

[4] Oakland Tribune 23 May 1907, page 7, “Society Gossip”

[5] Familysearch.org, California, County Marriages, 1850-1952, 005686492, Image of 699 event date: 30 May 1908, event place:  San Joaquin, California, United States, film number: 1411586, digital folder number:  005698097, image number:  01653

[6] Husted's Oakland, Alameda and Berkeley Directory, 1909, page 301, listing for Denison, Mrs Julia, and page 1498

[7] Husted's Oakland, Alameda and Berkeley Directory, 1910, page 55

[8] US Census, 1910, Year: 1910; Census Place: Oakland Ward 4, Alameda, California; Roll: T624_70; Page: 1B; Enumeration District: 0112; FHL microfilm: 1374083, line 87. Author’s note – I question this census as far as Julia Achard’s marital status is concerned.  It says she has been married 6 years in the current marriage (an identical number to the man and woman immediately below her on the census page) but the person above her, a 1-year-old girl is listed as W(idowed).  I suspect the W(idowed) designation should refer to Julia Achard.
 

Last week we left off with Julia's brother, Charles Brannack, arrested in the opium dens of Santa Cruz.  Today we return to Julia's saga...
​
By the time Charles Brannack was arrested in Santa Cruz, his sister had been married to her third husband, Meliton Achard, a Frenchman, and at last a husband near to her own age.  They were wed 2 July  1885 in Livermore, California.[i]  For a time they lived in Lodi.  This may be where Julia began her occupation as a midwife.  On 30 November 1889 Julia filed a patent application for a liniment, “highly beneficial in cases of sore throat, rheumatism, sprains, bruises, &c.”  It’s ingredients were specified as one gallon alcohol, one pound of chloroform, six ounces ether, six ounces laudanum, six ounces gum-camphor, six ounces tincture arnica, two ounces tincture cayenne, three large beef-galls, four ounces fresh butter.[ii]  She advertised her compound in various newspapers.[iii]

Julia and Meliton lived for a time in Lodi and then moved to San Francisco.  She advertised herself as a midwife and Meliton is listed in the city directories as a hotel keeper, The Liberty House.[iv]  It is hard to know how long they lived happily together, but the end of the marriage appears decidedly unhappy. 
​

"Julia Achard… charges cruelty as a ground for her application to be divorced from Meliton Achard.  The parties were married in Livermore July 2, 1885, and until recently, for aught that appears in the complaint, Achard was a good husband.  Achard entered upon his course of ill treatment by calling his wife bad names and imputing to her a want of chastity.  This sort of thing culminated last Monday in physical abuse and threats by Achard to take his wife's life.  He drove her from the house by force, and then nailed up the doors and windows so that she would not be able to return.  He has since held sole possession of the family residence at 555 [sic] Mission street, and Mrs. Achard has been compelled to look out for herself.[v]

Much as this would lead one to believe that Meliton no longer loved Julia, apparently he (or perhaps Julia) had a change of heart .  Seven months after his incident with the hammer and nails, Meliton’s obituary reads, “Died… Achard, In the Napa Insane Asylum, 9 July  1896, Meliton Achard, beloved husband of Julia A. Achard, a native of France, aged 52 years, 3 months and 29 days.”[vi]

Julia was not widowed for long.  On 12 June 1897 she married her fourth husband, Edward W. Matthews in Oakland.[vii]  But this turn at married life proved no happier for Julia, and she was granted a divorce from Edward on 9 January 1899 on the grounds of neglect.[viii]

Julia lived in San Francisco for several years as a “widow.”  She appears to have used the surname Achard, at least professionally, for most of the remainder of her life.  In June of 1898 she was practicing as a midwife with a “home in confinement” at 126 Second street.[ix]  Perhaps one such patient of Julia was Rose de la Fontaine. 

Rose, the daughter of Edward and Mary O’Neill was born about 1874.[x]  On 22 February 1893, Rose married John de la Fontaine.[xi]  Five months later Rose gave birth to Florence, who sadly died on 31 August 1894 at the age of one year, one month and one day.[xii]  On 22 January 1899, John and Rose lost another child, Grace, at the age of two months and 16 days.[xiii]  Maybe Julia Achard assisted at the birth of Grace.  In any event, in September of 1899, Rose was under the care of Julia Achard, when she died on 8 September.  “It was reported to Coroner Hill that Mrs. Achard had represented herself to be   a physician.  Should this prove the fact, the woman will be liable to prosecution for practicing medicine without a license.  Malpractice is suspected.”[xiv] 

However, the following week, the newspaper headline indicated “Midwife Achard was not to blame at all, Mrs. de la Fontaine died of a painful disease. First Verdict of the Jury not approved and a second verdict of death from natural causes received. Coroner Hill held an inquest yesterday morning upon the body of Mrs. R. de la Fontaine… The deceased had been attended by Mrs. Achard, a midwife, who had administered some simple remedy to relieve vomiting.  The autopsy showed that cirrhosis of the liver had caused death and that there were no evidences of malpractice or of even any necessity for it.  Mrs. Achard testified that in her experience of thirty-eight years as a midwife Mrs. de la Fontaine was the only patient who had died in her care.  She had suggested that a physician should be called, but Mrs. De la Fontaine refused to allow one to be summoned, as she did not believe her condition to be serious.  The jury returned a verdict that death had been caused by neglect, on the part of some person unknown, to summon medical assistance, but the coroner refused to approve of the verdict and the case was reopened and additional evidence introduced.  Autopsy Surgeon Zabala assured the jury that death was due to disease and even if a physician had been called in a few days before her death it was doubtful whether he could have succeeded in saving her life.  The jury returned a verdict of death from natural causes, and the verdict was approved".[xv]

If Rose de la Fontaine was the first patient who died in the care of Julia Achard, she was not the last. 


[i] San Francisco Chronicle, 6 Dec 1895, page 8, column 5, “Cruel Husbands Sued for Divorce”

[ii] Website: Women Inventor’s Index – 1790-1895, http://staff.lib.muohio.edu/shocker/govlaw/FemInv/patgifs/400992/01.jpg accessed 11 April 2013

[iii] Sacramento Daily Union, 22 Feb 1889, page 2, Advertisement “J.A.A. Liniment”

[iv] Great Register of Voters San Joaquin County, California 1890 California State Library, California History Section; Great Registers, 1866-1898; Collection Number: 4 - 2A; CSL Roll Number: 119; FHL Roll Number: 977281; City Directories for San Francisco, California, 1892, Publisher: Edward M Adams, Page Number: 163

[v] San Francisco Chronicle, 6 Dec 1895, page 8, column 5, "Cruel Husbands Sued for Divorce" (note:  city directories of the period indicate the address of the Achards was 550 Mission, not 555 Mission as stated in the newspaper article)

[vi] San Francisco Call, 17 July 1896, page 13

[vii] San Francisco Chronicle, 14 June 1897, page 9, column 3.

[viii] San Francisco Chronicle, 10 January 1899, page 6, column 1.

[ix] San Francisco Call, 2 June 1898, page 10

[x] US Census 1880 Year: 1880; Census Place: San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Roll: 77; Family History Film: 1254077; Page: 74C; Enumeration District: 151; Image: 0150, lines 6-15, accessed through Ancestry.com 5 March 2013

[xi] San Francisco Call, 20 July 1893 (sic), page 12, “Married” (note spelling is listed as de la Fontane)

[xii] Ibid, 1 September 1894, page 8, “Deaths”

[xiii] Ibid, 23 January 1899, page 9, “Deaths”

[xiv] San Francisco Chronicle, 9 September 1899, page 11 “Malpractice Is Suspected”

[xv] San Francisco Call, 12 September 1899, page 12, “Midwife Achard Was Not To Blame At All”

It would be difficult to assess who was the blackest sheep in the Brannack fold, but Julia’s brother, Charles Edgar Brannack might be a good candidate. 

In  January 1882, Charles and his nephew, Fred Wermuth (the two of them only a year apart in age) were involved in a barroom brawl in Calaveras County.  Charles and Fred along with their friends, a pair of cousins named Thomas and Robert Pope had gone quail hunting. The four men, none older than 23, packed their hunting gear, including four shotguns, and camped in a deserted cabin in the Sierra foothills.   On Friday evening they traveled to the town of Camanche, and after a period of drinking in John Cavagnero’s general store, they got into a row with each other, breaking up furniture, glassware and windows.  Henry Cavagnero, John’s brother[1], sent word to John who came in, calmed the men down and got them out into the street.  Back inside, the Cavagnero’s heard someone in the street yell, “Look, he’s going to shoot!” whereupon Charles Brannack rushed back inside, leveled his shotgun at Henry and exclaimed, “Shall I shoot the son of a bitch?”  And he did!  Cavagnero was seriously injured, shot entering in his head and neck.  Another man standing by him, Michael Fox, was also struck with shot in his nose.[2]

The four ruffians took off in a wagon at break-neck speed, headed for Lodi.  The wagon hit a stump, threw some of the men and some of the shotguns which fired as they hit the ground.  The Pope cousins, one of whom was wounded on his head, turned themselves in the next morning, but were later discharged.  Charles Brannack was arrested and jailed in Sacramento, though no charges were brought against Fred Wermuth.[3]  In July, Brannack was sentenced to two years imprisonment at San Quentin prison for shooting Cavagnero.[4]  It appears Henry Cavagnero survived.[5]

Any time he may have served in prison did little to improve Charles Brannack’s behavior.  In November 1887, the Santa Cruz police chief and another officer witnessed a man purchase opium.  The two followed him, trying to find his “joint” – the place where he would smoke the entrancing drug.  They followed him to Lyman Brannack’s barn .  The officers saw a light in the upper part of the barn.  Stepping to the door, the officers were confronted by Charles Brannack, the son of the owner, carrying a lantern in one hand and a shotgun in the other.  Seeing the officers, Brannack blew out the light.  They seized Brannack, and upstairs in the barn found there a regular opium joint.  They arrested Brannack and confiscated all the paraphernalia.[6]  Charles Brannack and fellow smoker, Henry Horn, were brought before Justice Skirm, who fined Brannack $100 and Horn $25, and while Brannack was able to pay his fine, Horn could not and was sentenced to $25 in jail.[7]
​
By the time Charles Brannack was arrested in Santa Cruz, his sister had been married to her third husband, Meliton Achard, a Frenchman, and at last a husband near to her own age….  More next week about Julia’s marriage to Mr. Achard. 
 


[1] It appears that Henry Cavagnero was likely John Cavagnero’s brother-in-law per the 1900 census. - US Census 1900 Year: 1900; Census Place: Jenny Lind, Calaveras, California; Roll: 84; Family History Film: 1240084; Page: 6A; Enumeration District: 1038; lines 36-43, accessed through Ancestry.com 29 January 2017

[2] San Francisco Chronicle, 22 Jan 1882, page 8 “A Barroom Brawl” and Sacramento Daily Union, 23 Jan 1882, page 1, “Result of a Carouse”

[3] ibid

[4] San Francisco Bulletin, 22 July 1882, page 2, “State News Items”

[5] US Census 1900 Year: 1900; Census Place: Jenny Lind, Calaveras, California; Roll: 84; Family History Film: 1240084; Page: 6A; Enumeration District: 1038; lines 36-43, accessed through Ancestry.com 29 January 2017

[6] Santa Cruz Daily Surf, 5 November 1887, page 1, col 5.  “Opium Smokers Arrested”

[7]“Sentinel Jottings,” Santa Cruz Sentinel (Santa Cruz, California) 06 Nov 1887, Page 3, col 1, accessed through Newsapapers.com 29 January 2017

Last we saw of Lyman Brannack, he had recently settled a law suit in Santa Cruz, California.  To catch up, see my blog post, 'Here a Court Case, There a Court Case.

​Shortly after he settled a lawsuit in Santa Cruz, Lyman decided to take a trip to Pontiac, Michigan, perhaps to see family.  In any event, while he was there, he met a Mrs. Hagerman and after a whirlwind courtship they decided to get married, notwithstanding his marriage to Sarah.   They were to have been married in Pontiac, but were worried about Mrs. Hagerman’s former husband, so they stole away and were married at Niagara Falls.[1]  They left for England.  It was there that the new Mrs. Brannack learned that her husband had a legal wife in California.  Upon her return from England, she writes to James Briggs, a friend of Lyman Brannack from Santa Cruz:

"Mr. James Briggs, Most Respected Sir. – It is with humility and under the most painful circumstances that I attempt to address you as I am the lady upon which Mr. L. H. Brannack practiced so much deception.  I married Mr. B. in good faith that he was all he represented himself to be.  I was wholly innocent in this matter and while I feel most deeply humiliated yet I committed no sin or crime.

"I had been, as I supposed, his legal wife just four weeks to a day, when a letter came from my dear children informing me of the fact that Mr. B. had a living wife.  I asked him if the statement were true and he said it was.  I never lived with him another hour as his wife after that, but immediately acted upon the advice of my dear daughter and sailed alone by first homeward bound steamer for New York.  While I greatly deplore the step I took, yet I feel that I was not to blame.  I am very proud and my family has ever stood above reproach and we feel all this very keenly.  It has subjected me to much newspaper notoriety which is very mortifying to us all.  I feel very sorry for all Mr. Brannack’s people, especially his present wife and his children.  It is a most lamentable thing all around.  I have returned to my own city and my many friends who crowd around me and say “You have our sympathy, we know you were not to blame.”  Now Mr. Briggs, Mr. Brannach told me to write to you and ascertain from you what his reputation and standing had ever been in Santa Cruz, and where he had lived.  Of course, after Mr. B. had so grossly deceived me I could not place much confidence in anything he told me and he referred me to you.  Did Mr. Brannack own certain property in Santa Cruz, some lots described as follows?

"Now, Mr. Briggs, I wish to know if Mr. Brannack was the bona fide owner of these lots when he left Santa Cruz for his trip to Europe and if he still owned them up to July 1st, 1889, and if there was any incumbrance [sic] on the same, and will you please give me your estimate of their value.  Mr B. told me to write to you as soon as I arrived home, and said you would give me any information I might wish concerning him.  How much is Mr. Brannack considered worth as to property?  Please make immediate reply, as I am very anxious to know.
​
Respectfully yours, Frances M. Hagerman[2]"

While the former Mrs. Hagerman is “deeply humiliated” she’s also quite curious about just how much money she might have come into on her marriage to the deceptive Lothario whom she wed so quickly.  In fact deeds sent by Mrs. Hagerman to the Santa Cruz  County Clerk were filed on 24 July 1889.  They were deeds for two pieces of property from Lyman Hibbard Brannack to Frances M. Hagerman, dated July 1, 1889 and were made in the city of London, England, describing property in Santa Cruz including several lots in one area, as well as another parcel with a house and improvements.  According to the paper, “the entire property deeded by Brannack to Mrs. Hagerman is worth from $2,500 to $3,000. [3]

The legal Mrs. Brannack had filed for divorce when she determined that Brannack did apparently go through with the marriage to Mrs. Hagerman.[4]  In late August, Mrs. Hagerman-Brannack traveled to Santa Cruz to see “her” property.   She sat down for an interview with The Daily Surf, and bore a letter from her attorneys in Michigan, supported by the signatures of many leading citizens of Pontiac.  Interestingly, the supportive letter notes that she had been married to Francis Hagerman for a number of years until he became intemperate and abusive of her, but fails to mention that she had spent a term at the Kalamazoo Insane Asylum (where she was at the time the 1880 census was taken) and lectured publically about her time in the asylum.[5]  In October, Mrs. Sarah Brannack was granted a divorce on the grounds of bigamy.  Mrs. Hagerman relinquished all the deeds to property in Santa Cruz and returned to Michigan.[6]  It does not appear that Lyman Brannack returned to the United States, preferring to remain abroad rather than face bigamy charges.

Mrs. Sarah Brannack was not quite done with her husband’s family when she received a good portion of real and personal property in October of 1889.  In March of the following year, she was sued by Mrs. Sarah A Clapp, Lyman’s daughter, for some personal property.  It seems that Lyman Brannack induced Thomas Clapp, Sarah’s husband, to leave a lucrative situation in Tulare county and make his home in Santa Cruz with his wife.  Brannack gave the property involved, a stationery engine, two wagons, a buggy, two horses, harness, etc and a colt to Sarah Clapp.  Sarah Brannack had received this property originally as part of her divorce settlement from Lyman, but the judge in Clapp v. Brannack ruled in favor of Mrs. Clapp.  The paper lamented that the family’s dirty linen was taken to Court to be washed.[7]
 
More next week - Like Father, Like Son - Julia's brother Charles Brannack has problems of his own....


[1] The Daily Inter Ocean, 23 July 1889 “She Married a Married Man”

[2] Santa Cruz Daily Surf 26 July 1889, page 3 “Brannack’s Badness”

[3] Santa Cruz Daily Surf 25 July 1889, page 3 “Brannack’s Benevolence”

[4] Santa Cruz Daily Surf 27 June 1889, page 1

[5] Santa Cruz Daily Surf 5 June 1889, page 3, “Brannack’s Bigamy”; 1880 US Census Year: 1880; Census Place: Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo, Michigan; Roll: 586; Family History Film: 1254586; Page: 199A; Enumeration District: 134; Image: 0399, line 46

[6] Santa Cruz Daily Surf 9 Oct 1889

[7] Santa Cruz Daily Surf 9 Oct 1889, 21 March 1890, page 3

After Julia's marriage to Jacob Wermuth ended, she didn't wait long to remarry.  But again, she found herself married to a man old enough to be her father.


Just four days after she appeared in the 1860 census in her father’s house, Julia was married to Percival Monroe.[i]  He was about 40, she just 18.  The start of the marriage might have been a bit rocky – the following year Percival Monroe was declared insolvent, discharged in San Joaquin county court from the payment of his debts and liabilities.[ii]

I have found few records for Julia in the 1860s.  It is curious to me that while she and Percival were married in 1860, the first child I can find from their union was not born until 1873.  And while the marriage may have lasted twenty-some years, it does not appear that it was a bed of roses.  In 1883, Percival was arrested at Stockton on a charge of libel preferred by his divorced wife, Julia A. Monroe.[iii]

This would not be Julia’s last foray into the court system.  The following year, she sued her father.  Before Hester Withee Brannack’s death in 1869, Lyman and Hester had engaged in some real estate transactions in which property was deeded to Hester.  After Hester’s death, Julia and her siblings, as heirs of Hester, brought suit against Lyman to inherit certain parcels.  The court ruled, however, that the parcels in question were not Hester’s separate property, and instead belonged to Lyman.[iv]

Nor was this Lyman’s only brush with a court.  After Hester died, he married a woman named Sarah.  They lived in Santa Cruz, California where he was on the city council[v], resigning 11 March 1885.[vi]  He was involved in various ventures including shipping and lumber in Santa Cruz.  A lawsuit was brought against him in 1889 by Alfred H. Fitch for the non-fulfillment of a contract to deliver shingles.  An entire trial was held, Brannack called many witnesses, the case went to the jury which deliberated for a  short while when they received word that Brannack and Fitch had settled, Fitch agreeing to withdraw the suit and pay the court costs, and Brannack agreeing to donate to the YMCA $150, a sum about equal to the court costs.[vii]

Much as Julia struggled to maintain a happy marriage with Jacob Wermuth and Percival Monroe, her father, Lyman’s marriage to his second wife Sarah might not have been a bed of roses.  More next week about Lyman’s 1889 trip to Pontiac, Michigan where he makes a new friend.


[i] Ancestry.com. Marriage records of San Joaquin County, California [database on-line]. Provo, UT: The Generations Network, Inc., 2004. Original data: Marriage records of San Joaquin County, California : August, 1850-December, 1865. Stockton, Calif.: The Society, 1969., “Register of marriages no. 1”, page 20 accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013

[ii] Stockton Daily Argus, 14 May 1861, accessed through Newspaper Abstracts, http://www.newspaperabstracts.com/link.php?id=31769, 30 January 2013

[iii] San Francisco Bulletin, 7 March 1883, page 1, “State News in Brief”, accessed through Genealogybank.com 30 January 2013

[iv] The Pacific Reporter Volume 4, page 488, West Publishing Company, “Brannock v. Monroe”, accessed through Googlebooks 30 January 2013 http://books.google.com/books?id=3ek-AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA488&lpg=PA488&dq=Hester+Brannack+the+pacific+reporter&source=bl&ots=fZZp96WxFY&sig=iSNFOCy5yt3-g8ilBclNmCmrUwo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g7YJUY_5NOGjigL-0oCgDQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Hester%20Brannack%20the%20pacific%20reporter&f=false

[v] Santa Cruz Local News Index, 15 April 1884, “Elected to City Council”, http://www2.santacruzpl.org/history/oldnews/full.php?record=1835&term=brannack, accessed 30 Jan 2013

[vi] Website – City of Santa Cruz Common Councils and Mayors, 1876-1906, http://scplweb.santacruzpl.org/history/gov/sc2.shtml accessed 30 Jan 2013

[vii] Santa Cruz Daily Surf, 12 February 1889, page 1

​More of the continuing saga of Julia.  Newspaper accounts led me to her stormy first marriage…

Jacob Alexander Wermuth and Julia Ann Brannock were married in San Joaquin County 1 January 1857.[1]  Julia was 14, and Jacob was about 20 years her senior.  Son, Millard, was born just ten months later.[2]  Two days before her second wedding anniversary, Julia ran off with another man.  The Weekly Stockton Democrat tells the story:

"ABDUCTION of a WIFE -- On Thursday, the 30th ult., a man by name of HANNA, who had been employed on a ranch near Henderson's, on the Mokelumne, eloped with the wife of J.H. WORMUTH. HANNA had formerly been suspected of improper intimacy with WORMUTH's wife, from which cause he had returned her to her parents, with whom she lived until a reconciliation took place, when she returned to her husband.

"On Thursday, the 30th ult., upon pretext of visiting her parents, she left home but did not return at night, which fact created some suspicion. On the following morning her husband went in search of her, and learned to his surprise that she had not visited her parents, and that the latter knew nothing of her whereabouts.

"HANNA, who has for several weeks past resided in this city, obtained a buggy from the Centre St. Livery Stables on Friday, and in company with WORMUTH's wife arrived in town as the boat was leaving for San Francisco, upon which they took passage, registering their names as Mr. & Mrs. BROWN.

"The father of the runaway wife, Mr. L.H. BRANNOCK, a gentleman much esteemed by his neighbors, arrived in the city yesterday, and obtained a warrant for the recovery of about $200 in coin and a quantity of jewelry in the possession of his daughter, and left on the boat last evening.
​
"The marriage of Mr. WORMUTH with his wife occurred about 2 years since, at which time she was 14 years of age. They lived happily until the appearance of HANNA upon her father's ranch as a hired man, when she repeatedly gave evidence of improper intimacy with HANNA.

"A child about a year old, the issue of the marriage, is left motherless and disgraced at her father's house; while the husband, a young man of intelligence and much respected by all who know him, has been made miserable through the heartless desertion of his wife.

"HANNA is a Canadian, with nothing prepossessing in his personal appearance, and uneducated; and while wanting in everything that elevates the man, his conduct has been uniformly that of one who would stoop to whatever was low and debasing in human character to accomplish the objects of his animal nature. Although the laws do not hold criminally responsible for the part he has taken in the abduction of a wife, it is to be hoped they may prove effectual in securing the return of the property, in obtaining which he undoubtedly performed the part of an accomplice, in order that his designs might be the more successfully carried ou"t.[3]

The San Francisco Bulletin continues the story on January 12:

"More of the Abductor of the Girl-Wife - The San Joaquin Republican says:

One Hugh Hanna was brought before Justice Brown, at Stockton, on 10th January, on charges of stealing a silver watch, valued at $16, and $16.50 in coin, from Mr. Wormuth, on the Mokelumne river.  Hanna, who is a Canadian, had been at work for the father of a Mrs. Wormuth, a respectable gentleman named Brannock, and succeeded in seducing his daughter, a girl of some fourteen or fifteen years.  She was married to Mr. Wormuth, who discovered her intimacy with the fellow even after marriage.  A separation ensued, but the husband was induced to receive the girl back.  About a week since, the wife eloped with Hanna, and was pursued and overtaken by the father of the young woman about 150 miles south of San Francisco.   They were taken to Stockton, and the foolish child-wife was saved from the shame, disgrace and certain ruin of living with Hanna, by being re-admitted to her father's house.  Unfortunately, the theft of Mr. Wormuth's property could not be proved upon the accused, and the District Attorney was compelled to enter a nolle prosequi.  He gave the fellow a severe lecture, concluding by advising the rascal to leave these parts.  If he is wise, he will heed the advice."[4]

In April of 1859, Jacob Wermuth was granted a decree of divorce, the allegation of desertion being sustained.[5]  On the 12th of September, 1859, Fred Wermuth was born.[6]  Given the timing of his birth in relation to Julia’s elopement with Hugh Hanna and her divorce from Jacob Wemuth, it may give a clue to suspicions about his paternity that Fred lived with Julia, and Millard stayed with Jacob.

More next week…
 


[1] Western States Marriage Index, Jacob Alexander Wermuth and Julia Ann Brannock, San Joaquin, Vol M, pg 85 http://abish.byui.edu/specialCollections/westernStates/westernStatesRecordDetail.cfm?recordID=1487551, accessed 30 January 2013

[2] California death index, Millard W. Wermuth, Birthdate 4 Nov 1857, Death Date 30 Dec 1954, Source Citation: Place: Sacramento; Date: 30 Dec 1954. accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013

[3] The Weekly Stockton Democrat, Sunday 9 January 1859, http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/casanjoa/2006-03/1143565203, accessed 30 Jan 2013

[4] “More of the Abductor of the Girl-Wife,” The San Francisco Bulletin, 12 January 1859, page 3, column 4, from GenealogyBank.com accessed 15 January 2017

[5] The Weekly Stockton Democrat, 24 April 1859, http://www.newspaperabstracts.com/link.php?id=25303 accessed 30 January 2013

[6] California death index, Millard W. Wermuth, Birthdate 12 Sep 1859, Death Date 3 Apr 1950, Source Citation: Place: Santa Cruz; Date: 3 Apr 1950, Social Security: 548073697. accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013

A continuation from last week, as I begin to research the mysterious Mrs. J. A.  Achard/Mrs. Shiland of 415A Third Street, San Francisco, who may have had something to do with the death of Sarah Ahern, wife of my great-great uncle, Jimmy Ahern.

The easiest place to begin looking for Julia was the 1900 US Federal census for San Francisco.  I found her right away, living on Castro Street.  She was 58, divorced, born in Michigan, had given birth to 6 children, all of whom were still alive, and she resided with her 27-year-old son, David Monroe and his wife, Nellie.  Although no occupation is listed for Julia, David is a bartender.[1]  The city directory for San Francisco was able to shed a little more light on Julia, however.  In the 1901 San Francisco city directory, Mrs. Julia A Achard, residing at 415A 3d is a midwife.[2]

But now that I had her son’s name, David Monroe, born about 1873 in California, I thought I’d backtrack a bit on Julia and see what more I could find.  The 1880 census gave me a few more names in Julia’s life.  In Elkhorn Township, San Joaquin County, Julia Monroe lives with her husband, Percival Monroe and their four children, David, twin daughters Ida and Ada, aged 4, and a son Lewis, aged 1.   Also in the house are three farm laborers – Fred Wermuth, the 20-year-old step-son of Percival Monroe, and Harrison and Charles Branack, ages 27 and 21, brothers of Julia Monroe.[3]   Looks like I’ve found Julia’s maiden name, Branack, and perhaps another married name for her, Wermuth, as well as five of the six children counted on the 1900 census.

Ten years earlier, Julia and P Monroe live in Elliot Township in San Joaquin, with a 10-year-old boy, Fred Monroe, likely to be the same Fred Wermuth as in 1880.  Three presumably unrelated males, perhaps farm laborers, live in the house at the same time.[4]  Elsewhere in San Joaquin, in O’Neal Township, resides L.H. Brannock, a 52-year-old male farmer, L.M. Brannock, a 26 year old female, born in Ohio, Sarah Brannock, age 19, H. Brannock, a 17-year-old male, (could be Harrison from the 1880 census), Chas Brannock, age 12 and Estella Brannock, age 9, the last two born in California, plus three farm laborers.[5] 

The Wermuth part of the equation gets a little foggy – a Wermuth family seems to appear twice in the census.  On a census taken 10 June 1870 in Elkhorn Township appear 44-year-old J.A. Wormeth, born in New York, 46-year-old Eliza Wormeth born in Arkansas and  12-year-old Willard Wormeth born in California.[6]  On a census taken 5 August 1870 in Stockton, appear  J.V. Wormuth, age 46, Eliza Wormuth, age 46 and Millard Wormuth age 12, all with the same birthplaces as in the Elkhorn Township listing.[7]  No other Wermuths (or variants) appear in San Joaquin in 1870.

Rolling back another decade, the 1860 census for Elkhorn Township taken on the 18th of July gives a household full of Brannacks – Lyman H, Hester A, both 42, born in New York and Maine, respectively (the same parental birthplaces listed for Julia Achard in 1900), Julia A, age 18, Emily, 13, Sarah, 9, Harrison 7, Charles 2, as well as Frederick M. Wermuth, age 10/12, and four farm laborers.[8]   Alex, Elizabeth and Millard Wermuth are also living in Elkhorn Township.[9]

The census provided some dry facts – names, ages, birthplaces, occupations.  Now I had my “cast of characters.”  It was when I got into the newspapers that my fascination with Julia took shape…

More next week…


[1] US Census of 1900, Year: 1900; Census Place: San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Roll: 103; Page: 8A; Enumeration District: 0134; FHL microfilm: 1240103, lines 34-36, accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013
[2] Crocker-Langley Directory for San Francisco, 1901, page 164
[3] US Census of 1880, Year: 1880; Census Place: , San Joaquin, California; Roll: 80; Family History Film: 1254080; Page: 195C; Enumeration District: 104; household of Percival Monroe, lines 19-27, accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013
[4] US Census of 1870, Year: 1870; Census Place: Elliot, San Joaquin, California; Roll: M593_86; Page: 79B; Image: 162; Family History Library Film: 545585, lines 12-17 accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013
[5] US Census of 1870, Year: 1870; Census Place: Oneal, San Joaquin, California; Roll: M593_86; Page: 102B; Image: 208; Family History Library Film: 545585, lines 23-31 accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013
[6] US Census of 1870, Year: 1870; Census Place: Elkhorn, San Joaquin, California; Roll: M593_86; Page: 56A; Image: 115; Family History Library Film: 545585, lines 38-40, accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013
[7] US Census of 1870, Year: 1870; Census Place: Stockton, San Joaquin, California; Roll: M593_86; Page: 177A; Image: 357; Family History Library Film: 545585, lines 13-15, accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013
[8] US Census of 1860, Year: 1860; Census Place: Elkhorn, San Joaquin, California; Roll: M653_64; Page: 100 (penned); Image: 354; Family History Library Film: 803064, lines 15-26, accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013
[9] US Census of 1860, Year: 1860; Census Place: Elkhorn, San Joaquin, California; Roll: M653_64; Page: 973; Image: 359; Family History Library Film: 803064, lines 37-39, accessed through Ancestry.com 30 January 2013