Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-08-30

then carried to the place where found {:
| that after tho killing small sum Of
money and a watch. the property OF
deceased. was taken by the boy: that
no rock or stick was found near the
scene or claimed to be tho instruments
used: that both prisoners voluntarily
confessed TO the killing. each giving
Substantially the facts as above mar
rated.
DR.. Walker. who made the examina-
tion OF the dead body OF Roach. testi-
fled that he found a wound on the
back Of the head. the soull broken in
and the brains oozing out; that the
wound had bled considerably: that this
would was sufficient to produce death;
that on the front of the head was
wound In and across the face In
and near the eyes: that this wound was
inflicted by some instrument which
clcaved the skull just above the eye,
and that this wound was sufficient to
cause death. and that IL was inflicted
after the wound the back of the
head, as was indicated by the small
amount of bleeding thercfrom: that
three other wounds wore found upon
the top of the head. each made by some
instrument which clcaved the skull,
all OF which did not bleed. the Wounds
penetrating the brain.
That upon the trial Of the older Bar
rett, and after the evidence was in.
Mr.. Lancaster. counsel for the accused,
offered an instruction in plea Of justiti-
cation. based upon the ground of ar
resting. imprisoning and OBTAINING tho
prisoner without a warrant Of arrest
in case where 4 warrant OF arrest was
necessary. This instruction the court
refused. and counsel for prisoner ex-
cepted to the ruling of the court: that
counsel for prisoner did undertake to
argue upon the facts he claimed to be
d. 10 I.,-k To-.
and refused by the court; that tho court
did call counsers attention to tho
fact Of the refusal of the In
struction and reminded him that he
must not again undertake to argue Il
recall no threat OF fine) upon Ques-
ton of law which the court had refused
to give as the law OF this case.
SAYS LANCASTER CONSULTED
BOY IN OPEN COURT
That upon the trial of the boy. who
had. through counsel, MIR Lancaster
therefore. plead mot guilty" and
elected TO be tried separately. when
again brought to the bar. and after
his counsel had intimated that he. coun-
sci for the boy. was consid ering the
advisabi OF withdrawing the plea
of not guilty" and pleading guilty"
submitting all tho questions Of law and
fact TO the court. counsel for the boy.
after apparently consulting with the
boy and advising him In open court.
stated that he had done all ne could.
and further. that he would no longer
represent the prisoner. and. therefore.
the court advised the boy of his rights,
and fully explained to him that he
could be tried by jury on his plea
of not guilty" but that the court
could not try him on such n plea. and
that he (the prisoner) had the right
TO plead in the way he desired: the
boy then, in the presence of his former
counsel and his father. formally with
drew his plea OF mot guilty" and plead
guilty" to the charge in the indict-
ment, that then the court caused evil
dence to be taken, which was as to
the killing, in substance. what has
been stated above. and in addition, evil
dence was taken upon the question OF
the age of the prisoner. and it was
shown that he was between sixteen
and seventeen years OF age. One wit
ness. who claimed to have known the
prisoner all his life stated that the
boy might be little more than seven
teen or little less.
(Signed) a. d. WATKINS.
Acting Prosecuting Attorney.
Farmville. Va, August IS. 1917.