Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-08-30
CONFLICTING CLAIMS
MADE IN BARRETT CASE
CONTINUED From FRS, Page

fCOntlnueQ L rom fdSe)
Farmville. while Mr.. Lancaster, in q
signed statement. reiterates his asser-
ton that Mr.. watkins Is under an
egresious mistake. and that he had
declined 10 advise Aubrey Barrett. in
view OF the rulings of Judge Hundley
on the instructions in the trial of the
father.
NIr. Lancaster's statement and from
the evidence OF those presen, at
the trial. the negro boy was tried
without counsel, without a jury,
was induced 10 change his plea from
not guilty to guilty. was too ignorant
of the forms of law to note an ex-
ception or enter a protest on which
his case could be given a foothoid in
the Supreme Court. and practically on
his own admission OF the killing OF
w. T. Roach in defense of his father.
when Roach had come TO tho Barrett
place without warrant or due au-
hhority OF arrest, and had there started
p fight with the elder Barrett. was
sentenced 10 execution Governor
Stuarts action in granting respite
OF thirty days offered the only way
of examining into the conflicting
claims and insuring tina, justice was
Seing done
NUDGE HUNDLEY ISSUES
30 SIGNED STATEMENT
1.-THE statement OF Judge Hundley
follows:
To the Ed!,o. OF the Times-Dispatch:
sir'-Ay attention has been called
10 statement from! SIR. Lancaster in
ihis mornings paper. 10 which l make
z BRIEF reply. l shall not enter into
2 contest OF memory with him, nor
shall say an unkind word about him.
feel NO unkindness toward him He
knows that ! have had occasion to
show him that more than once al,
tach hereto a statement from Judge
"A. y. Watkins, who acted for the Com.
monwealth in the Garrett cases. which
sustains every statement of fact made
oy me In my previous article and with
Few words more as TO Nr. Lancas-
ter's statement, l shall avail myself
bf the opportunity TO say something Of
ihe tendency OF such d proceeding As
ehis 20 undermine and discredit the au-
thoFity OF the courts. and to create dis
trust in the minds or ignorant and un.
thinking peofte. -.
1 repeat here with emphasis that not
pnly did Lancaster act as counsel for
both of the Barretts. but that after the
father's conviction he came up 10 me
on tho bench and stated to me pri-
Tately that the boy would change his
plea OF mot guilty" to guilty. and
asked me II would send him TO a re.
make no promises. but would hear the
whole case and then decide. and after
wards he spoke OF withdrawing from
The case. but saw him consulting with
Poth prisoners. and when I spoke TO
him and asked him what he would do
about II, he said in open court that
Abe boy would change his plea as
plated, thought. and had the right to
mink, from all that passed, that whilst
ne had decided to make no defense for
Inc boy. tina he was still speaking as
the lawyer TO whom had been com
united the defense of both father and
son.
BAYS BOYS CONFESSION
LEFT HIN NO DEFENSE
Mr.. Lancaster does not assert. nor
would any one believe. that he was only
employed TO defend the father ! con-
GUIDED that as they had used the boy as
witness for his father and knew that
the boys confession had left him no
defense, he intended TO make none for
him. When said in my former state
meht that i cannot believe Mr.. Lam
caster Is base enough to desert one OF
n hls clients and then not even intimate
Sio the judge that his client had a
efense." ! was simply trying TO re-
fisVe,s him from the pitiable position
That Omcious Intermediates had put
him In Unfortunately though. Air. Lam
b caster has put himself into ii worse po-
sition. He says now this boy had a
good defense. but having refused an
obstruction he offered in the fathers
cage Ito which refusal he knows, and
y will not now deny, he expected at the
3 ftme) he determined not to make de-
fepsp tor the boy. He knows, or ought
. .to<know. that be could have had a jury
and offer that same instruction. in the
case of the boy. and when refused he
could have had suspension Of the
execution Of sentence. and taken both
! cases to the Court OF Appeals. Why
did he not do this? Can he explain
such gross dersiiction of duty? He
nays that threatened TO fine him
when he attempted TO argue 10 the jury
in the fathers case the law stated by
him in the instruction offered by him
which had refused. OF course,
could not allow him TO argue isains,
the law that had given. but he had
his remedy. and II was wrong. the
Court Of Appeals could have corrected
the error.
EVIL OF MAKING
4 ATTACKS ON COURTS
But enough of this; go now TO
few observations on the evil that Il
done by such attacks on the courts a.
fittjBely 4tlIuatrated by this case. Her.
two copnttss were 80 stirred to tn