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

Continued from First Page.)
Barrett was represented by counsel,
in the person of w. l.. Lancaster, of
Farmville, while Mr.. Lancaster, in a
! signed statement, rcitcratcs his asscr-
| ton that Mr.. Watkins is under an
| cgrcgious mistake, and that he had
| declined to adv Sc Aubrey Barrett, in
view Of the ruling Of Judge lIundlcy
on the intructions in the trial of the
| father.
| Mr.. Lancastcr'S statement and from
! the evidence Of those present at the
! trial. the Negro boy was tried without
counsel, without a 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 on which his case be given n
! foo<hoid in 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
granting Il respite of .hi1ty days offer
ed the only way of examining into
the conflicting claim and insuring
that Justice was being done.
! JUDGE HUMIDITY ISSUES
| SIGNED STATEMENT
! The slater cnt of Judge IIundlcy
! follows:
TO the Editor of the Timcs-Dispatch:
Sir:--My attention has hccn call
cd to statement from Mr.. Lancaster
in this mornings paper. to which |
make brief roply. l shall not enter
into contest of memory with him.
nor shall | say an unkind word about
him. | feel no unkindncss toward him
He knows that I have had occasion to
show him that more than once. I at
tach hereto statement from Judge
n. ID. Watkins, who acted for the Com
monwcalth in the Barrett cases. which
= austains every statement Of fact made
by me i'll my previous article and
with few words more as to Mr.. Ian
casters statement, | shall avail my
self Of tho opportunity to say some
thing OF the tendency of such Il pro-
cccding 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 Ct the Barretts. but that ar-
ter the fathers conviction he camc
up to me on the bench and stated to
me privately that Ike boy would change
his plea Of mot guilty" "to guilty"
and asked me If I would send him to
rcformatory, and | told him that
would make no promises. but would
hear the whole case and then decide
and afterwards he spoke Of withdraw
ing from the case, but | saw him con-
suIting with both prisoners, and when
| spoke to him and asked him what
he would do about IT, hc said in opcu
court that the boy would change his
rs stated l 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
still ,,snealking as the lcwyer to svnon,
had been 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 he was
only employed to defend the father, I
cohcluded that as they had used the
boy as witness for his father and
knew That the boys confession had
icit him no defense, he intended 10
make none for him. When | said in
my former statement that 81 cannot
I
10 desert one OF his clients, and then
not even intimate to the Judge that
ms cl'ent had 4 defense" | was sim
ply trying to relieve him from the
= pltlable position that officiOus intor
'uaiers mad put Inn in. Unfortunate
~, .ho"sh' MI. Lancaster has put him
sell INTO a worse position. He SAYS
now TINS boy had a good defense. but
htF'ns refused an instruction he of
ieFed IN the fathers case Ito which
,e'osal ne knows, and will not deny
ne expected 1T the time he determined
not l" make defense for the boy. Tic
knows. or ought to know. thar he could
nave mad jury and offer that same
instruction in the case of the bow. and
"heh refused he could have had q
suspension of the execution of sen
"iit tdNSll DOlI cases 10 rho
court or Appeals. Why did he not dc
thls? Can he explain such a gross
dereliction of duty? He says that
threatened to fine him when he at
tempted to argue to the jury in the
fathers case the law stated by him
IN the instruction offered by him
which had refused or course, I could
not allow him to argue against the
law that l had given, but he had his
remedy, and if I was wrong, the Cont
OF Appeals could have corrected the
error
- ..'e'
EVIL OF MAKING -,
! ATTACKS ON COURTS
But enough Of this; I go now to a
few observations on the evil that is
done by such attacks on the courts as
flttlngly illustrated by this case Here
two counties were so stirred 70 the
! dcnthS by the horror Of tbis r,urdor