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

PApNRS INTERESTED IN TRIAL
OF BARRETT BOY.
Tho 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
cutive clemency in behalf of the boy.
The case was then given wide publici
ty, 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 an Inadequate record of the
trial, and 4e will be executed Scptem-
Der 30 unless a further rcspitc is
granted by the Governor. The Suprcm,
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 q prison sen
tcnce Tor execution in cases of this
character
Briefly, Albert and Aubrey Barrett
were arrested, charged with the muir
der of w. II Roach, a Charlotte COM
W farmer, under circumstances that
mad provoked some apprehension of
mob violence. Roach was said to haye
been missing wheat from a field and
TO have attempted to arrest tho elder
Barrett. This attempt, made without
warrant, resulted in the boy going
10 the rescue Of his father and in the
light that followed Roach was killed
because or intense feeling a speedy
trial was deemed advisable and n
special term OF the court was called
Inc elder Barrett was represented
by MIR. Lancaster, who was called in
the day of the trial The Negro plead
cd not guilty" but was convicted
or first degree murder and sentenced
TO be executed. The boy was then olac.
en- on trial. lie had previously plead
ed not guilty" but later personally
changed this to guilty" after his conn
sci mad withdrawn from the case bc--
cause Of disagreement over instruc
tlon to the jury in the trial of tho
father. Judge Hundlcy then dispcns-
ed with jury, heard the evidence and
liked the penalty at death. He said In
Il puDllshed statement that the law
was clear, and he had no alternative
but TO sentence the boy to die.
SUPREME COURT SAYS BOY
NOTED NO EXCEPTIONS.
me supreme Court of Appeals in its
opinion however stated that tho court
had been in error and that tho bov
colld nave been sentenced to Drjson
because the boy had no counsel II
was contended that his legal rights
hao not been properly safeguarded
as nc noted no exceptions in which
10 pase an appeal. 1t was around tbis
poiht mat the editorial comments of
~ freeman were entered, and 10
when exception is taken by Judge
lundiey. 1t Is not known what parts
vi ME. Lancaster's statements tho
court DelleVed to be in contomnt
Nltchells criticisms are said to have
been severe.
In the controversy there have bosn
conflicting statements, but thorn 10
no doubt or the fact that the how was
tired without jury, and that he was
not represented by counsel. Tina an,
preme Court said: "the record IN this
case contains none of tho cvidonoo
ana discloses nothing that took mace
at the trial except that the petition
cr and Albert Barrett were Jointly IN
alcted' and upon arrangement pleaded
not guilty and elected to be tried soma.
ipteiy, After conviction of Albert
1sarrett the record shows that Aubrcv
barrett withdrew his plea of not
guilty and entered plea OF guiltv
and by his consent in person, enter,
ca IN open court elected to be tried
ny the court, and the attorney for thc
commonwealth consented thereto. and
inc court, after hearing the testimo-
n.y. round him guilty of murder in
inc ilrst degree and sentenced him to
be elcctrocuted
Ihe record does not disclose tbo
reiation between the two Barretts. tho
evidence relative to the murder, the
age or Aubrey, the circumstances -.
tehdihg the entry of the plea of rui,.
~ nor any objection or execution to
Inc actlon of the trial court.
SluMmond. Va, Evening Journal
Sept. "a, 1917 "'|'