Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-11-08
CONTEMPT CHARGES
DROPPED BY HUNDLEY
Freeman, Lancaster and Mitchell Do
Not Question Judges Hon.
cSty Of Purpose.
ENTER DEMURRER TO RULE
Editor Claims Right to Write and
Publish Articles as to Conduct OF
Criminal Proceedings in Courts of
Nirginin.

After short hearing ut the MORN
ing session OF the Circuit Court of
Charlotte County. Judge George j..
iundlcy, of Farmvillc, yesterday af-
tcrnoon dismissed the charges of con-
tempt OF court brought by him against
DR.. Douglas :. Freeman, of Richmond;
William a. Lancaster, "a Farmvilie at
torncy. and John Mitchell, Jr.. colored,
editor and owner of weekly Rich
mond newspaper. All three men denied
they intended any wrong, and asserted
that they hadtnot asSailcd the court
when the statements were published.
The three men filed their answers
through ]. NJ. Crude and Judge Asa d.
Watkins. of Farmvilc. The disclaim-
ers were read when the charges were
called yesterday morning. After the de-
PENDANTS had disclaimed any intention
of rejecting upon the action OF the
court in the trial of Aubrey Barrett.
the negro boy convicted Of murder.
Judge Hundlcy dismissed the charges.
Several days ago counsel for the
three men mailed their disclaimers to
Judge Watkins. the assistant Com
monwcalth's Attorney. Neither the de-
PENDANTS nor their counsel were re-
quircd TO attend the hearing in the
Charlotte County court yesterday.
FREEMAN CLAIMS RIGHT
TO WRITE; CRITICISMS
The answer OF DR.. Freeman was as
follows:
This respondent comes and demurs
to the rule issued against him as above
set out. OH the ground that the same
is insufficient in law and further moves
that said rule he discharged as i'm
providcntly issued.
And now, without waving either his
demurrer or his motion that the rule
be discharged, but expressly insisting
upon the same. for answer TO said rule
he comes and says:
This respondent is the editor Of the
News Leader, newspaper published in
the city Of Richmond, Va, and held
such position at the time Of tho articles
set out In said rule.
This respondent was the author of
the editorial articles set out therein
and holds himself responsible for the
news article embodied in said rule and
maintains that he had Il right as the
editor of newspaper. to write and
publish said articles. This RESPONDENT
further maintains that no one OF said
articles is susceptible of Il construction
which would place him In contempt of
TINS court. Certain ii is that he did
not intend to reflect upon the persona
and judicial honesty of the Hon. Georg ,
j. llundley, judge OF this court
And now having fully answered,
this respondent prays to be hence dis
missed"
NO REFLECTION on
JUDICIAL. INTEGRITY
Mr.. Lancaster. who was counsel AT
the trial of the Barrett boys father
! told the court that he had only en-
deavorcd TO make Il fair representation
OF his own experience in the case, and
had intended no reflection uDon the
court. The reply of Mitchell was tina
his editorial comment was based unon
information he obtained in the columns
oil other newspapers, which he had prc-
snmcd WAS accurate. If he had known
the Information to be inaccurate. he
said, he would not have used it,
When these answers were read and
Judge liundley found that his personal
and judicial honesty had not been as
sailed and with assurances to the con-
trarE. the charges were dismissed
Or. freeman was represented by
Murray Nj. Mcclure. Hiram NJ Smith
and John Il. Lightfoot Answers FOR
and filed by Harry NJ. Smith, Jr.. of
Richmond. and were sent to Judge
Watkins several days ago
Inc contempt charges resulted from
II controversy which arose after tho
trial of Aubrey Barrett, who was con-
Fictcd or completely in the killing of
w 7. Roach. ii farmer of Charlotte
county. The boy was tried without a
jury and without representation by
counsel The defendants in the con-
tempt charges were cited to court be-
cause of certain statements made dur
ing this controversy.
Aubrey Barrett is now in the peni-
tertiary, under death sentence. He
was recently granted respite by Gov
crnor stuart, pending IA further inquiry
INTO the case. The Supreme Court of
Appeals was petitioned for "A new trial.
but because OF the absence of the
record in the cause had nothing upon
which TO base a decision