Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1917-09-08
THE BARRETT CASE
Continued from First Page.)

in the person of w. l.. Lancaster, Of
Farmville, while Mr.. Lancaster, in a
I signed statement, rciterates his asser-
ton that Mr.. Watkins Is under an
| egregious mistake, and that he had
declined to advise Aubrey Barrett, i'll
| view of the ruling of Judge Hundley
on the intructions in the trial Of the
| father.
Mr.. Lancaster's statement and from
the evidence of those present at the
trial, the Negro boy was tried without
counsel, without Il jury, was induced
to change his plea from not guilty to
guilty was too ignorant of the forms
OF law to note an exception or enter
protest OH which his case be given a
/ ioothold i'll the Supreme Court, and
practically OH his own admission oil
the killing of w. II. Roach in defense
Of his father, when Roach had come
| to the Barrett place without war
rant or due authority of arrest, and
had there started fight with the
elder Barrett, was sentenced to exc
cutiOn. Governor Stuarts action In
granting Il respite Of .hilty days offer
ed the only way Of examining into
the conflicting claim and insuring
that Justice was being done.
JUDGE HUNDLEY ISSUES
SIGNED STATEMENT
The slater ent of Judge Hundley
follows:
TO the Editor of the Times-Dispatch 4:
Sir:-My attention has been call
cd to statement from Mr.. Lancaster
in this mornings paper, to which I
make a brief roply. l shall not enter
into Il contest Of memory with him,
nor shall | say an unkind word about
him. ! feel no unkindncss toward him
lie knows that I have had occasion to
show him that moro than once. I at
tach hereto statement from Judge
a. ID. Watkins, who acted for tho Com
monwealth in the Barrett cases, which
austains every statement Of fact made
by me in my previous article and
with few words more as to Mr.. Ian
casters statement, I shall avail my
self Of tho opportunity to say come
thing Oh the tendency of such q pro-
ceeding as this to undermine and dis
credit the authority Of the courts,
and to create distrust in the minds
of ignorant and unthinking people.
| repeat here with emphasis that
not only did Lancaster act as council
for both Of the Barretts, but that az
ter the fathers conviction he came
up to me On the bench and stated to
me privately that the boy would change
his plea Of mot guilty" "to guilty"
I and asked me If would send him to
rcformatory, and told him that I
would make no promises, but would
hear the whole case and then decide
and afterwards he spoke OF withdraw
ing from the case, but I saw him con-
sulting with both prisoners, and when
I spoke to him and asked him what
he would do about It, ho said in open
court that the boy would change his
as stated, I thought, and had the
right to think, from all that passed,
that whilst he had decided to make
no defense for the boy, that he was
L still ,,sneaking as the lawyer to wt.om
had Sbeen committed the defense OF
both father and son.
SAYS BOYS CONFESSION
LEFT HIM NO DEFENSE
Mr.. Lancaster does not assert, nor
would any one believe. that ho WAS
only employed to defend the father.
boy as witness for his father and
knew that the boys confession had
ie1t MIN no defense, he intended tC
make none FOR him, When / said il
my former statement that az cannot
believe Mr.. Lancaster is base enougl
TO desert one OF his clients, and ther
not even intimate to the judge thai
ms clcnt had a Defense" I was sim
IN
plllaDlc position that officious inter
naaiers had put him in. Unfortunate
~, though, Mr.. Lancaster has put him
SCH INTO worse position. He say.
now TINS boy had a good defense bu,
i having refused an instruction he of
leEcd IN the fathers case (to which
,elusal he knows, and will not deny
ne expected ct the time he determined
not To make defense for the boy. HI
knows. or ought to know. that he coulC
nave had jury and offer that same
instruction In the case Of the boy, ant
when refused he could have had {
suspension of the execution of sen
tehce, and taken both cases to thu
court Of Appeals. Why did he not de-
TINS? Can he explain such gros.
uerellction of duty? He says that
threatened to fine him when he NJ
tempted to argue to the jury in The
fathers case the law stated by hin
In the instruction offered by hin
which had refused. OF course, 1 coulf
not allow him to argue against thu
law that had given, but he had his
remedy. and If was wrong the Cour
OF Appeals could have corrected tho
error.
-. a.. =,
EVIL OF MAKING -
ATTACKS ON COURTS
Il
But enough Of this: I go now to g
rev observations on the evil that Is
! done by such attacks on the courts as
| fittingly illustrated by this case. Here
! two counties were so stirred to the
! denthS hX tho horror. af