Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-08-28
DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM
MAN WITHOUT WARRANT
Attorney Lancaster Issues State
mcnt as to Trial of Seventeen
Year.Old Aubrey Barrett.
COURT REFUSED INSTRUCTIONS
Threatened Lawyer With Fine When
He Referred to Fact That ROUGH
Had No Warrant for Arrest of
Either Barrett.

That Aubrey Barrett the seventeen
year-old negro youth under sentence of
execution at the State Penitentiary for
murder was not tried by jury. was
not represented by counsel and was In
fact defending himself from man
who was pursuing him without war
rant. was stated yesterday to Governor
Stuart by w. L. Lancaster. an attorney
Of Farmville. who appeared as counsel
for the defense Of the elder Barrett
No application for clemency has been
made for Albert Barrett, the father.
who in the judgment of a jury was
guilty of murder. State Senator Addi-
son, of Lynchburs. and others, how
ever. have interested themselves in the
case OF the boy, and have asked Gov
ernor Stuart to defer the execution In
order that a further investigation can
be made.
Judge George j. Hundley. who pre-
sided ut the trial. has stated that the
boy confessed the murder in open
court that his plea of guilty made it
unnecessary TO have Il jury or to as
sign counsel for tho defense. and that
the court did not have the option which
the law gives to juries in cases of this
and could only find the boy guilty Of
first-dcgree murder and order his ex-
ccution.
Unless Governor Stuart intervcncs
both. the older and younger Barrett
will be executed at the State Peniten-
tiary on Thursday morning.
ATTORNEY LANCASTER
ISSUES SIGNED STATEMENT
The following signed sta temcnt was
issued yesterday by Mr.. Lancaster. who
appeared as counsel for the elder Bar
rett.
To the Editor of The Times Dispa tch:
Sir.--I have read the statements and
comments published in the News. of
Lynchburg. and what Judge Hundley
says in tho News Leader of August -.
and in The Times Dispatch of August
IS. I must say that Judge Hundley is
mistaken in his recollection that in
open announced that the boy, Aubrey
Barrett. wished To change his plea
from not guilty to guilty. On the con-
trary, instead OF withdrawing his first
plea. / withdrew my services and cx-
pressly stated that 1 would represent
him no longer, and that l would not
assume the responsibility OF advising
what plea he should be tried upon. I
nsver waived jury in his case and had
no more to do with it in Charlotte.
The boy hesitated for some time
when asked by the court il he wished
to change his plea to guilty. Mr.. Light.
assistant prosecuting attorney, bears
me out in this il his statement in
Lynchburg News is correct AS to
the boys age. think that the testi-
mony was that he was between sixteen
and seventeen. Since the trial leaf
was torn from the Barrett. family BIZ
bic. which leaf is now in my posses
sion. showing the date of marriage and
ages of family. the age of Albert Bar
rett 10 &c thirty-seven and the boy.
Aubrey. TO have been born July :. 1901.
making him in his seventeenth year
NO EVIDENCE THAT iII..lTt; WAS
INTENDED OR PREMEDTrATED
The evidence did not show that Au-
hrey Barrett struck the blow which
felled w. 7 Roach to the ground and
that the father turned the deceased
over on the back and beat him in the
face with a rock till. as the father said.
he finished him." nor was there evil
dence that they admitted that they had
been caught in the mans wheat field
stealing his wheat and that the boy had
come up behind the mans back while
he was scufiling with the father and
struck him TO the ground with a large
stick. nor did the doctor say that the
X,
was not struck with /; stick. but with
some harder and sharper instrument,
in his opinion.
The doctor said that the blow said
to be struck with the rock. in his opin-
ion. was with sharper instrument.
The evidence along this line was that
the night before the killing the Bar
retts had gone with their wagon at
midnight and stolen from w. T.
II anhf at
that Roach and Mr.. Collins at about 7
A. NJ. next morning tracked the wagon
and wheat from the field where taken
and stolen TO the wheat field Of Albert
Barrett; that Albert and the boy ac-
knowledged the larceny; that Mr.. Roach
sent Mr.. Collins, az he. Collins. stated
Tor a warrant of arrest; that Albert
Jarrett tried to compromise or pay Mr.
Roach to drop the larceny prosecution
Mr.. Roach properly refused TO accept
the proposition. whcreupon Albert ran
and MIR Roach after him Albert fell
over pile of brush after running $50
yards. and Mr.. Roach caught him while
down and was choking him Albert
called for Aubrey TO helr him Then
IL was that Aubrey picked up chest
nut stick with Il knot on il tsize was
never mentioned or inquired into), and
struck the blow. and the inference was
that the knot struck the back OF the
head. for DR.. Walker said the brains
were oozins out of the skull where
the wound was on the back OF the
head and ne said that that wound. |.
not fatal. was sufficient to be fatal
The inference was that that wound
was the fatal wound. because the doc
tor said the wounds on the frontal por-
ton of the head bled very little. n
any. Tho evidence was that Albert
made those wounds with rock az
large as his two fists. DR.. Walker said
that the rock wounds would have
proved fatal. had the stick wound not
been fatal.
COURT REFUSED INSTRUCTIONS
AS TO PURSUIT WITHOUT WARRANT
if | was base enough to desert my
client. had thought could have done
| MN service. | WAS not cgotistic, bold
or base enough to think that could
90 him good when ] had made SO great
a failure for tn. father. had offered
an instruction which 4 thought from
inc evidence was proper and should
have been allowed. and which would
have prevented the jury from finding
the prisoner guilty OF murder either in
the trst or second degree, but the court