Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1917-09-01
DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM
MAN WITHOUT WARRANT.
Attorney Lancaster Issues Statement
As to Trial of Scvcntccn-Icar
Old Aubrey Barrett.
Threatened Lawyer With Fine When
He Referred to Fact that Roach
Had No N;nrrant for Arrest of
Neither barrett.

inaC aubrey barrett the seven
teen-ycar-old negro youth under sem
tence of execution at the State Peni-
Tertiary for murder was not tried by
jury, was not represented by coun-
sci and was in fact defending HIM
self from man who was pursuing
him without n warrant, was stated
yesterday 10 Governor Stuart by w
l.. Lancaster, an attorney Of Farm
Vile, who appeared as counsel for
the defense Of the elder Barrett
No application for clemency has
been made for Albert Barrett, the
father, who in the judgment of n
jury was guilty Of murder. State
Senator Addison, of Lynchburg, and
others, however, have interested
themselves in the case of the boy,
and have asked Governor Stuart to
defer the execution in order that
further investigation can be made.
Judge George J. Hundley, who
presided at the trial, has stated that
the boy confessed the murder in
, open court, that his plea of guilty
made. 1t unnecessary to have q jury
I gStos ASST gn counsel for tho defense,
Y stiIu Ftha ttnS scO q did not thayuH tbs
option which the law gives to jurles
in cases of this sort of sentencin.
to the penitentiary, and could only
find the boy guilty of first-degree
murder and order his execution.
Unless Governor Stuart intervenes
both the older and younger Barrett
will be executed at the State Peni-
Tertiary on Thursday morning.
Attorney Lancaster Issues Signed
Statement.
The following signed statement
was issued yesterday by Mr.. Lam
caster. who appeared as counsel for
the elder Barrett.
To the Editor of The Times Dispatch:
Sill have read the statements
and comments published in the News
of Lynchburg, and what Judge
Hundley says in the News-Leadcr of
August 3. and in The Times-Dis-
patch Of August %. must say that
Judge Hundley is mistaken in his
that the boy, Aubrey Barrett, wished
to change his plea from not guilty
to guilty. On the contrary, instead
of withdrawing his first plea, I with
drew my services and express
stated that ! would represent him no
longer, and that 7 would not assume
the responsibility Of advising what
plea he should be tried upon. I
never waived jury in his case and
had no more to do with it in Char
lotte.
The boy hesitated for some time
when asked by the court if he
wished to change his plea to guilty.
Mr.. Light, assistant prosecuting at
torney, bears me out in this If his
statement in LyncEburg News is
A q n l.
that the testimony was that he was
between sixteen and seventeen.
Since the trial leaf was torn from
: the Barrett family Bible, which leaf
is now in my possession, showing the
date Of marriage and ages Of fam
lily, the age of Albert Barrett to be
thirty-seven and the boy, Aubrey, to
have been born July Z, 1901, maxi
ing him in his seventeenth year.
No Evidence That Killing Was In
tended or Premcditatcd.
The evidence did not show that
Aubrey Barrett struck the blow
which felled w. r. Roach to the
ground and that "the father turned
the deceased over on the back and
beat him in the face with rock
till, as the father said, he FINISHED
him." nor was there evidence that
they admitted that they had been
caught in the mans wheat field,
stealing his wheat and that the boy
had come up behind the mans back
while he was scuffling with the
father and struck him to the ground
with large stick, nor did the doc
tor say that the blow said to be
struck with the stick, was not struck
with stick, but with some harder
and sharper instrument, in his
opinion.
The doctor said that the blow said
to be struck with the rock, in his
opinion, was with sharper instru-
ment.
The evidence along this line was
that the night before the killing tho
Baretts had gone with their wagon
at midnight and stolen from w. IT.
Roach's wheat field load OF wheat;
that Roach and Mr.. Collins, at about