Los Angeles herald., 1891-10-29
125 s. Spring st., Wagner's Kimberley. o1llyr

brother-in-law of our respected citizen,
G. J. Griffith, OF the Los Feliz rancho,
the poor fellow kept a saloon on Boyle
Heights.
There was still another piece of paper,
on which had been copied the following
notice of Mr.. Griffith, taken from a
Welsh newspaper:
Among the Los Angeles Welshman is
millionaire, Mr.. 6. J. Griffith. l
wonder if any of his friends in the
neighborhood OF Bridgen remember the
ragged little lad who was their playmate
in those quiet Welsh country lanes. He
continued in very poor circumstances
long after he emigrated to America
making his residence first at Danville,
Pennsylvania. Indomitable pluck,
steady perseverance and little enter
prise, however, soon put him on the
high road to success. He now owns a
farm of $500 acres, and is accredited
with being worth over million dollars.
Not the least honorable incident in his
history, is the fact that he recently sent
over to Wales for his aged parents, who
now, in their old age, enjoy the pleasure
of ease and plenty in the home of the
son to whom the only patrimony they
could give was the early religious train
ing of the old Welsh home in Glamor-
ganshire. Welsh is still the language
OF the home in this California palace, as
it used to be in the old Glamorganshire
cottage. ."-[ Copied from the Cardiff
Times, Wales, March "a, 1888.
A HERALD reporter called upon Mr..
John Robarts, who was mentioned in
Burkett's note, and obtained full state
ment from him about the land contro-
versy in which he acted as Burkett's at
| torney, and it throws clear light upon
the motives which led him to the des-
perate deed which eliminated in his
death.
"The case,' said Mr.. Robarts, to
which Burkett referred was Burkett vs..
| Griffith, and was a suit for slander of
the title of land in the Los Feliz rancho.
! He held leasehold interest in 496 acres
OF land. In fact, there were two cases.
Burkett was retired wine merchant of
London, England, and brought to this
country about $4,000. During boom
| times he obtained lease of the land in
question from Mr.. Griffith, one clause in
the lease reading that the land was
leased for the purpose of ostrich farming
and park purposes. He did have some
ostriches just above the old ostrich farm
for time, but sold them, and Mr.. Crit
| fifth claimed that he had not carried out
his part of the contract. He got behind
in his payments also, and Mr.. Griffith
recovered judgment against him for back
payments.
F'In 1889 the whole thing resulted in
suit by Burkett, in which l was his at
torney, against Mr.. Griffith, charging
him with having said to several persons
that his leasehold interest was forfeited
by his not having carried out it's provis-
ions, thus knocking in the head pros
pective sale he had of the land to Mr..
Sketchley in England. The first case
was tried by Gage and Robarts before
Judge Van Dyke, and Mr.. Burkett was
non-suited. Then in July 1890 he began
a second suit on the same grounds, but
alleging the slander had been said to
different person. Mr.. Griffith demurred
through his attorneys, Stephen M.
White, George w. Knox and A. M. Hut
! ton. The demurrer was sustained by
Judge Van Dyke. An appeal was taken
to the supreme court by me, and it sus-
tanned the decision made by Judge Van
Dyke.
"Mr. Burkett, about two days prior
to the expiration of the thirty days in
which to petition for new rehearing,
asked me if it would not be advisable to
petition for a rehearing. | told him
| that in my opinion it would be no use.
The court had laid down the law of the
case and it would be a waste of money,
and the time which was left to us to
make the petition was too short. He
did not seem to be satisfied, and said he
would 90 and see Blcknell, who was as
| ~, 10 OF nd
every step was done after consultation
with me. Mr.. Burkett returned and
said he had not gathered much infor-
nation from Mr.. Bicknell. 1 reiterated
my advice to him. After the time had
expired he came to the Office and ex-
pressed himself as being dissatisfied
that the petition had not been made.
During the time the appeal was pending
his house burned, and he claimed that
Mr.. Griffith had caused it to be burned.
He claimed that he had spent the
greater part OF the $25, 900 in the place,
and was set in his feeling that Mr..
Griffith had beaten him out OF it. lie
felt very bitter towards him."
Judge John Bicknell was seen late in
the afternoon, and said: II assisted
John Robarts in the case before judge
Van Dyke, and assisted in the prepara-
ton of the brief to the supreme court in
the last case. So far as | know Mr..
Robarts did all that could be done in
behalf OF Mr.. Burkett. 1t was not lost
through any negligence of Mr.. Robarts.
The supreme court held that the state
ment made by Mr.. Griffith did not
amount to SANDER of title"
1t is evident that Mr.. Burkett had
been preparing for the tragedy for sew
eral days. Last Monday he went into
Eagleson & Co.. dry goods house, and
in conversation with f. A. Eagleson,
told him that Mr.. Robarts had sold him
out. That he had put him off until the
time had gone by for filing petition,
and that he had gone to another lawyer
who told him the case had not been
handled right. He said he was going to
do something if he did not win his case.
A HERALD reporter saw Mr.. Griffith
in his room at the United States hotel
last night. He was suffering consider
able pain from the numerous wounds In