Los Angeles herald., 1892-02-06
LIBEL lin FRENCH.
THE G0YTINo CASE BEFORE JUS
TIQE OWENS,
a Difaculty Ia Getting satisfactory
Translation Of the Article Complained
Some Curious Blunders, .....1

<t<4f<t Rtttt<tHA iiuoA Coh0 VI tuo PcOplc
asISisla r. Goytino, editor of LIE
kfgj'fbs, q local French weekly, was
~ y. I'D l!s yeete erday afternoon before JUS
fIes Owens. The prosecution moved
another continuance of the trial on the
grounds that the prosecuting witness,
Virginia Raskin OF San Francisco was
not to be found. The court overruled
the motion, holding that the several
continuances already granted ought to
have given the prosecution chance to
produce their witnesses. A jury was
impaneled, and the case went on.
Deputy District Attorney Diehl first
addressed the jury, and read what pur-
ported to be translation Of an article
published in LIE Progress on February
A, 1891. This translation made Mr..
Goytino charge, in his paper, that Vir
ginia Raskin, the complainant, had run
away to Mexico with Mexican friar.
1t also referred to her as a ''frolcky re-
ligious person." The rest of the text
was rather incomprehensible.
Horace Appel, Esq, counsel for the
defense, interposed two objections be-
fore the evidence of the first witness
was given for the people. He held that
the complaint was not sufficient, as not
| showing that the offense was committed
within the jurisdiction of the court.
Not that the case was not within such
| jurisdiction. but that the complaint did
not show that it was. Overruled, and
exception taken.
Mr.. Appel also pointed out that the
complaint does not set forth the article
in the language in which it was pub
lished. This was also overruled, and an
exception taken.
The first witness for the people was
Alberto j. Carol, a printer who worked
as sub for Tom Laughlin during three
days OF February, 1891. During that
time he set up the allegedly libelous
article. The manuscript for it., ne said,
he obtained from Mr.. Goytino.
The expert translator and interpreter,
M. De Cells, was next called, and trans-
lated the article from the original. His
rendition of the text was in several in
stances radically different from that
given in the complaint. Thus, where
the prosecution translated phrase,
"devout and idiotic," Mr.. De Cells in
terpreted it, "devout and beatifed,"
and declared that person OF course
might be beatitied and idiotic at the
same time, but that the French word in
the article did not suggest any such
idea. Another passage in the complaint
is translated iran away with a Mexi-
can friaf," while the interpreter made
it read, "ran away with frail Mexi-
can." At the same time he acknowl-
edged that Goytino might have intended
a play on the Spanish word, "fraile,"
meaning a friar.
Prof. Weller, teacher of languages,
gave a translation of the article in which
all the doubtful words were given their
worst meanings. He insisted upon trans
lating the adjective "falichonne," APP
Piled to the plaintiff, 'wanton," while
the defense held it meant only "frolic-
some"
When Prof. Weller was asked by Mr..
Appel whether he did not dislike the de-
fendant, the professor replied with sharp
sarcasm: ''Oh, simply love him"
Col. J. j. Ayers was also called by the
prosecution, and made plain, straight
forward translation OF the article. He
did not interpret the word "folichonne,"
however, and when asked what it meant,
replied, that as far as he could see the
definition was matter of argument in
the Los Angeles police court.
Court then adjourned, the case being
continued until 2 o'clock this morning.