The San Francisco call., 1896-05-13
PIRACY, SUICIDE,
INSOLVENCY, LIBEL
Interesting Points Involved
in a Los Angeles
Lawsuit.
E. D'ARToIs' GRIEVANCES
Union Nouvelle" Says That He
Is the Son of a Mexi.
can Pirate.
DAYS OF MACMILLAN REVIVED
The Father of the Plaintiff Committed
Suicide in This City Ten
Years Ago.
DAYS OF MAMMALIAN REVIVED

Piracy, suicide and failure for several
thousand dollars is involved in suit for
criminal libel recently filed in Los Angeles
by one Emil d'Artois against French
paper of that city.
The early part of the story really centers
In this City, because it is on the evidence
obtainable here that the claimant hopes to
win his suit.
Some weeks ago Emil d'Artois of Los
Angeles went into insolvency. On April
l. lie Petit Californian published an article
saying that d'Artois was the same man
who had been tried for piracy many years
before.
The Union Nouvelle, a French paper
published in the same city, declared that
the man who had just gone into insolv-
ency was not the pirate, but his son-the
pirate himself had committed suicide in
San Francisco in the early part of 1886.
Emil d'Artois thereupon began a suit
for criminal libel against the French paper
which had declared him to be the son of
pirate. The proprietors of the journal
immediately employed Attorney Scott of
Los Angeles to look up the facts in the
case and that gentleman has succeeded in
making up lot of ancient interesting
data.
1t appears that on December 1866. one
Ga ston d Artols was charged before Com
missioner Sullivan with the crime of
piracy on the high seas. The evidence
brought out at the hearing involved the
good name of Macmillan, the self-pro-
claimed Emperor of Mexico, and General
Jaurez, who, made such bitter and sue
cessful fight for republican form of gov
eminent.
1t seems that in the month of October
1866. the brig Basco, flying the flag OF
Maximilian, the so-called Emperor of
Mexico, set sail from La Paz for San Fran
cisco on the 18th of the month named.
She made Cape San Lucas, $50 miles dis
tant, on the 23d, when the captain thought
it prudent TO secure a fresh supply of
water. He accordingly stopped his vessel
$50 feet off the shore.
Shortly after anchoring, according to the
findings of Commissioner Sullivan, a boat
containing three armed men came from
the shore to the brig. This boat was COM
manded by CASTOR d'Artois. Later FIVE
other men came from the shore, and at a
given signal three others put off from the
sloop Jenny. an American vessel living
near the Basco.
D'Artois, by force or otherwise, secured
the sum of $500 from the Basco, said to
be the property of one Paul Rothes. In
addition to this box addressed to Wells,
Fargo & Co. was confiscated and taken to
the shore, but later returned as it con-
tanned only specimens.
The brig was released on q bond of S10.-
600, given by the captain and payable in
San Francisco. The authority on which
the seizure was made was contained in an
instrument given CASTOR d'Artois bv one
Ramon Carona, general under the
JuareZ or Republican Government of
Mexico, then in command of three States
bordering on the Pacific. D'Artois was
given authority to seize all vessels under
the French flag or the flag of Macmillan.
Commissioner Sullivan held, first, that
DArtois was an American citizen, and
further, that he was not pirate, because
he had refused to take several thousand
dollars on board the Basco belonging to
parties other than Frenchmen. In addi.
tion to this, there were two parties in
power in Mexico at the time-one under
Maximilian and the other headed by
Juarez, whom the Federal Government
recognized. In view of this D Artois was
set free.
The capture of D'Artois was thing of
easy moment. After holding up the Basco
at La Paz and securing the booty named,
he boarded vessel bound for San Fran
cisco, reaching this port day or two after
the Bascc. He was arrested, tried and
released, as above stated.
D'Artois returned to Mexico for few
months, but later concluded to make his
home in San Francisco. He became a
travelling salesman for an Eastern cloth
ing-house, and for time prospered. In
1885 he seemed to grow despondent, and on
October 30 OF that year committed suicide
at 2O7 MONTGOMERY avenue. The son, the
same presumably who is now suing for
criminal libel, testified that his father was
temporarily insane.