The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-08-18
THE LUNENBURG MURDER.
Mr.. I. IL. Bell, the Lawyer, Makes State
men Of What He raid.
wnburn. Va. August IA, 1895.

| wnburn. Va. August IA. 1895.
To the Editor Of The Times:
Slr,-I see in your issue of the 18th
instant a letter from South Hill. headed,
Jurors Regret Their Verdict" The cor
respondent referred to states that he.
In company with Mr.. h. II. Buford, went
| 10 the residence Of Mr.. J. Z HazlewOod,
one Of the jurors In the Pokey Barnes
case. "and after reciting what Mr.. Halle
wood said says:
After leaving Mr.. Lakewood. / went
70 see Mr.. Bell, and from Mr.. Bell l
| learned that Oh the nialH OF the day
| that Pokey Barnes was convicted, MIR.
| Lakewood came by 20 see him, and
said that he was afraid that he had done
wrong. and that he had consented TO
verdict which was Unjust. From what
Mr.. Lakewood said Mr.. Bell inferred
that he had been threatened. and that
he consented to the verdict because he
was afraid of the people, that two or
three days afterwards. Mr.. Lakewood
| and Mr.. Crisis Edwards, another OF the
Jurors, came to see him. and attempted
| TO employ HIM 10 secure a new trial for
! the women, and said that he OSeiD said
| that the evidence presented at court. and
as set out In the committees statement,
| was much weaker than he had looked
for"
The correspondent in this article failed
to get me down properly, though | impute
| no bad motive 10 him. lie came TO see
me, and staid but a few minutes. In COM
| pany with Mr.. r. =. Buford. They did
not get out Of their hack, nor did he
! take down my statements at the time;
hence. / account for the inaccuracies
What he says about Mr.. Lakewood
coming by to see me on the night OF
| the conviction OF Pokey Barnes is sub
stanially correct. but he is In error when
he says l Informed him that Mr.. Halle
wood had consented 10 his verdict D.
| cause he was afraid Of the people, for /
did not and DO not think Mr.. Hazlewood
a. that sort Of a gentleman. But ! in
ferred from what Mr. Lakewood said.
| that he had consented 10 a verdict that
he at the time Of his conversation with
me. considered wrong, and that he had
been Influenced by others Of the jury. who
did n great deal Of wild and exciting
talk about persons who would not con-
sent 10 hang the prisoner, was willing TO
turn muraeres loose etc, etc.
Ii Is true that | stated TO him that
both Mr.. Lakewood and Mr.. Edwards
came 10 see me a few days afterwards, TO
see II l could tell them any way IN which
they could get some action taken IN
relation 10 the Pokey Barnes case, that
would admit Of their doing something
that would negative their action, but
neither OF them attempted 10 employ me,
IN the general acceptation OF the term.
Nor did they say anything about a new
trial, or anything OF the kind. for the
other women. They only spoke IN this
connection Of the POkey Barnes case, In
which they had sat as jurors.
Said correspondent reports me as hay
fptr nTfcTnfrI
court and as set out I'm the committees
statement. was much weaker than
had expected. In this, while said CORE
srOndent may not DO me any violent in
Justice. / would rather appear as / stated
g. which was about this: That l was not
present at the trial Of the women, ana
aid not hear the testimony, but, from
what I saw reported IN the papers-both
The Times and Dispatch-the evidence
was not as strong as ] had expected IL
Il was abiding 10 the POkey Barnes
easel. and called attention 70 the speech
of the Commonwealth attorney as re-
ported, which as 7 remember n. was I'm
substance. about this. sink or
swim live or die. the Commonwealth
rests its case here. II YOU believe the
evidence Of Solomon Narable. about this
woman participating I'm this horrible deed.
YOU should hang her as high as hemp VIII
ldnE lfTf NIf II YOU Ap lipt h'i-Nf' tit'
testimony. the Commonwealth has no
case" | said. If those were the facts,
] thought Mr.. Nebitt. the Common
weaIth's Attorney, had put the matter
very fairly before the jury, and ! was
surprised az the verdict Of the jury. IT,
on the other hand. there was strong
corrobOrative evidence. az ! had heard
some contend there was then ! thought
Mr.. Neblitts speech was very unfortu-
nate for our people and the county at
large. for. as the case was reported, II
apnarod that this woman had been
condemned on the uncorroboratcd tesii-
mony Of Solomon Marahle. whom all adj
mitted was q notorious liar. and the
verdict was open for criticism by an
Intelligent public and the press Of the
country.
The aforesaid correspondent says: MI
Bell says he did not refuse 10 defend
the women because he believed them 20
be guilty but because be- had other inn
portant business interests 90 look after"
What / stated was. from what ! had
learned. l. e.. when they were put upon
their trial. / believed they were guilty
hut that was not the only reason l had
for not defending them That | was not
az the time feeling very well. ana ] had
other important matters 70 attend 10
before the trial would have closed. Is
10 my reasons about not defending the
narties. I did not expect them 60 Ice in-
corporated I'm the said correspondents
rcnort: hence they were not given IN
full l. T.. BELL.