Los Angeles herald., 1892-02-26
An Attempt to Have 1t For
feited.
The History of Some Editorial
Litigation.
The Present Status of Some Acrid
Libel Suits.
The Proceedings aud Counter Proceed
ings-The Bond Declared Forfeited.
A Doubt as to Further
Proceedings.

JuStlce AUSTIN yesterday declared the
bail-bond Of Charles RaskiD, in the case
of the People vs. Raskin, forfeited.
j. P. Goytino, editor of LIE Progress,
and Charles Raskin, editor of LIE Gaul-
ois, were in October, 1891, rival French
editors, and the rroverbial antipathy Of
Frank and Teuton was not to be COM
pared with the degree of personal an
tagonism which characterized the rela-
tions of these two hot-heads.
Mr.. Raskin, who at one time was the
Belgian consul here, decided to sell his
paper, and did so. On the eve of his
departure for Europe the valiant Bel
gian also made up his mind to give Mr..
Goytino parting shot, and inasmuch
as his powers of vituperation were not
equal to his feelings, the services of
Prof. Weller were enlisted for the
production of chili-colorado ar
ticle. The literary effort was, as
the slang expression puts it, shot stuff
indeed, and threw into the shade even
the scorching editorials of the Arizona
Kicker.
1t characterized Mr.. Goytino as an all
round crook, thief, swindler, and a
penman who had forged his uncle's en-
dorsement to notes in France. 1t also
alleged that Goytino had been a mem ber
of Catholic brotherhood and had been
ousted for crimes against nature. Such
choice insinuations filled up three or
four columns on the editorial page of
LIE Gaulois. 80
Raskin, on the day of this publica-
tion, took the overland train east, but
was apprehended at Barstow on charge
OF criminal libel, and brought back
here. He was arraigned before Justice
Austin and placed under $1,000 bail.
Messrs. III. Clary and @. Castera, two
saloou-keepers, being accepted as bonds
men.
When the examination was to take
place, Raskin's counsel moved a contin-
uance, on the grounds that the defense
desired to obtain some dispositions of
witnesses in France. A continuance
was accordingly granted of Thirty days.
Soon after, however, Raskin's counsel
secured a stipulation from the district
attorneys Office, that the case would
not be tried for four months. This was
done without the knowledge of the COM
planning witness or of Horace Appel,
esq.,, counsel for Goytino. After the
thirty days. continuance had expired,
the stipulation was simply sprungb by the
district attorney.
BY way of reprisal, Raskin's sister,
Virginia Rasxin, swore to complaint
for criminal libel against Goytino, and
had the latter arrested.
This case was tried before Justice
Owens a couple of weeks ago and the
jury found for the defendant.
In order to harrass the editor of LIE
Progress, Miss Raskin also brought
civil suit for damages against Goytino
and the stockholders in the paper.
When it came up in the superior court
the complaint was demurred to and the
demurrer was sustained. Yesterday the
plaintiffs counsel filed amendments to
the complaint.
In the meantime Raskin himself had
gone to Europe, and when the stipulated
four months had elapsed he was not
here. His counsel made affidavit that
he would be here in two weeks, and an
other continuance was granted, al
though there were no documents shown
in evidence that Raskin would ever
come back. The only communication
seen from Raskin since he left was a
paper he mailed to Goytino, on the wrap
per of which was the elegant superscrip-
ton: 'To that blackmailer, forger and
all-around liar, J. P. Goytino." For
this illegitimate use of Uncle Sans
mails charge was brought against
Raskin in the United States courts.
At the end of the third continuance,
Raskin was still absent, and more affi-
davits were submitted to show that he
would be back in still an additional two
weeks. Counsel for prosecution moved
to forfeit bail, but was denied.
Yesterday came the end of the mud
die. The defense held that the trial
could proceed without the presence of
the defendant. Although this is true in
superior court, it does not hold in police
courts, and the court declared the bail
bond forfeited. It now remains to be
seen whether the district attorneys
office, at whose door is laid all this de-
lay, will dilly-dally in bringing suit
against the bondsmen to recover.