Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1917-10-06
PAPHRs INTERESTED IN TRIAL
OF BARRETT BOY,

The newspapers Of the State became
interested in the case OF Aubrey Bar
rett an ignorant Negro boy not yet
seventeen years Of age, when State
Senator Walter E. Addison, of Lynch
burg, editor Of the Lynchburg News,
appealed to Governor Stuart for exc
'cutiye clemency in behalf of the boy.
The case was then given wide publici
~, and the Governor granted a thir.
ty-day respite in order that he might
look into the merits Of the case. Since
that time the state Supreme Court of
Appeals has refused him on appeal be
cause of all inadequate record of the
trial, and he will be executed Septem-
Der 80 unless q further respite Is
granted by the Governor. The Supreme
Court, however, held that Judge Humid.
ley was In error in his contention that
the presiding judge did not have the
same discretion given to juries by
statute Of substituting prison SEN
tence for execution in cases of this
character
briefly, Albert and Aubrey Barrett
were arrested, charged with the muir
der OF w. I. Roach, a Charlotte Coun
W farmer, under circumstances that
had provoked some apprehension of
mop violence. Roach was said to have
bcon missing wheat from field and
10 have attempted to arrest the elder
barrett. This attempt, made without
warrant, resulted in the boy going
10 the rescue of his father and in the
llght that followed Roach was killed.
because OF intense feeling a speedy
trlal was deemed advisable and q
special term OF the court was called,
me elder Barrett was represented
ny Mr. Lancaster, who was called in
the day OF the trial. The Negro plead
Gu not guilty" but was convicted
Oh 11rst degree murder and sentenced
10 Do executed. The boy was then pIac
Gu on trial. He had previously plead
Gu not guilty." but later personally
changed this to guilty" after his coun
sci had Withdrawn from the case be-
cause OF disagreement over instruc
tion TO the jury in the trial OF the
lather.. Judge Hundley then dispens-
gu with jury, heard the evidence and
liked the penalty at death. He said In
published statement that the law
was clear. and he had no alternative
out to sentence the boy to die.
SUPREME COURT SAYS ROY
NOTED NO EXCEPTIONS,
me supreme Court Of Appeals in it's
opinion however stated that the court
mad been In error and that the how
could have been sentenced to nrison
because the boy had no counsel n
was contended that his legal rights
Iad not been properly safeguarded,
as ho noted no exceptions in which
10 pase an appeal. It was around this
point that the editorial comments of
Ut. freeman were entered and tn
which ex, 1ption 10 taken by INDIE
Hundley. 1t Is not known what narts
OF Mr., Lancaster's statements the
court believed to be in contomnt
Mitchell's criticisms are said to have
been severe.
In the controversy there have bean
conflicting statements, but there 10
no doubt OF the fact that the how was
tried without Jury, and that he was
not represented by counsel Tha Sin
preme Court said: "the record in thja
case contains none Of tho evidence
ana discloses nothing that took mace
at the trial except that the petition
CT ana Albert Barrett were Jointly IN
ulcted, and upon arraignment pleaded
not guilty and elected to be tried sepa.
9aaeeiy After conviction Of Albert
I,afTett the record shows that Aubrey
barrett withdrew his plea of not
guilty and entered plea Of guilty
ana by his consent in person, enter.
ea IN open court elected to be tried
Dy the court, and the attorney for tho
commonwealth consented thereto. and
the court. after hearing the testfmo-
n.y. found him guilty of murder IN
the first degree and gentenced him to
be elcctrocuted. ~
Ine record does not disclose the
relation between the two Barretts. the
evidence relative to the murder, the
age or Aubrey, the circumstances 9.
-. the entry of the plea of gull
~ nor any objection or exception TO
tne action of the trial court.
Sept "a, 1917. N'