The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1901-11-27
TWO MERCHANTS
FACE COURTS IRE
Contempt Proceedings
Sequel to Peculiar
Robbery.
Cayucos Business Men Are
Fighting for Their Liberty
and Honor.
Special Dispatch to The Can.

| LOS ANGELES, Nov. 26.-From the lit
| tie town of Cayucos, San Luis Obispo
| County, comes sensational legal case in
volving the honor and liberty of two
prominent business men. 1t is being heard
in the United States District Court of this
city, where Judge Olin Wellborn is trying
three persons for contempt The story in
wolves the sudden Failure of a supposedly
rich firm, the disappearance OF many
thousands of dollars, the peculiar robbery
of a safe which was not injured and a
mysterious woman who has exerted an
influence over one of the partners
Natels de Gottardi and David E. Righ-
ETH for many years conducted a general
merchandise store in Cayucos, a town of
about 400 inhabitants. Despite humble
surroundings, the firm did a pig business
and turned over many hundreds of dol
lars each week. On April 80, 1901. it was
indebted to merchants and banks in the
sum of $4,000. De Gottardi came to Los
Angeles on April q and collected about
$6OOO in cash from Loeb, Freshman & Co.
This amount he claims to have put into
the firm safe in Cayucos, together with
$500 of his own money. the same night.
On the morning of May l De Gottar1i
and Righeti announced that their safe
had been robbed by burglars, who had
secured entrance to the store by drilling
the rear door. The safe was not damage
in the least.
Creditors Take a Hand.
San Francisco creditors sent for the
partners, and they Were examined in that
the creditors attached the store and
stock. Bankruptcy proceedings were in
stituted, and the partners were ordered
to appear before Referee Louis Lamy IN
San Luis Obispo
In that examination It was ascertained
that De Gottardi had disposed of one
half interest TO his brother-in-law; thai
he had drawn from the firms cash $500
within six weeks nrinr tn the SO-CallNd
robbery; that Righetti had sold his in
terest in a dairy business for a $1,000 note,
which he claims to have given to ms
wife; that he also drew $1,000 out of the
firms business and purchased with it
house and lot, which he Immediately
homesteaded; that the firm on May 1,
A. Dorm, San Luis Obispo attorney.
$4,000, which the partners claimed was in
payment of an $500 bill, the $1,000 being a
retainer for the burglary case.
During the first examination before the
referee both De Gottardi and Righett re-
fused to answer vital and important in
quiries on the ground that my answer
might tend to incriminate me and might
be made the foundation of a criminal ac-
ton against me, and it might have a ten
dency to subject me to punishment for
crime
Refuse to Answer Questions.
The referee grew tired of an empty pro-
ceeding and brought the AFFAIR to the ears
of Judge Wellborn, who decided that the
questions must be answered.
When the examination was taken up
again in October De Gottardi was asked
what disposition he had made of the $500
drawn from the firms funds. The witness
replied that he had given to a woman $4,000
and to a physician $425.
'Who are these persOnS?' he was asked.
De Gottardi refused to answer. When
pressed regarding the mysterious woman
the father of five children informed the.
court that he had got into some trouble
with her. That was the reason he had
given her the $4,000. The witness would
not reveal more on this score and his re-
fusal is a cause Of the contempt case
Mrs. Righetti, wife of the partner, is UP
for contempt also. She claims to have re-
ceived $1,000 note from her husband. but
ing it.
No Evidence of Robbery.
Referee Lemy, after taking all the tes-
timony, found:
FirstLThat there had been no robbery
Second-That there had been no affair
me sd to her r''t of 5000 by De Gottardi.
Third-That there had been no $425 pay
ment to physician.
On October II the referee, therefore, or
dered the firm to pay to the trustee the
sum of $500: De Gottardf to pay the sum
of $1,000, making in all total Of $12,500.
The two were given twenty-four hours in
which to put UP the money In favor of
the creditors.
The orders were not obeyed by either
De Gottardi or Righetti. consequently
Court upon contempt proceedings, fight
ing for liberty.
Attorney F. A. Dorm was notified by the
referee to return the $500 which the firm
had paid to him. He Immediately COM
piled with the request.
The contempt proceedings will occupy
several days, as much testimony Is to be
reviewed.