Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1917-09-22
ATTORNEY LANCASTER DISA-
GEEES WITH NEIGIiBORS.


| Editor Virginian:
| Sir,-Lct the twcnty-six citizens of
| charlotte county who loved and re-
| spcctcd the late Mr.. w. Il. Roach and
myself reason together and allow me
| 10 ask few questions. | don't, nor
can L, galnsay one word of what YOU
| nave SAID except that you are miStak-
Ell II you think Aubrey Barrett was
represented by any lawyer on his trial
at Charlotte c. H., excepting this al.
so: that | have never written nor
said one word about Albert Barrett
being under average intelligence. But
Ill this connection | must say that 7
have heard difference of opinion cx-
pressed and must also say that after
| drafted a petition for communication
III Aubrcy's case, which | PROPOSED
TO send to Charlotte county and ell
deaVor 20 have the citizens there sign
L submitted ii TO my friend, cX-iudgc
n. ID. watkins, and asked him to adj
wise with me concerning same (and
III it was nothing Of the boys ignor-
alce or lntelligcncc.) Judge Wat
kihs; who prosecuted the Barretts,
pronounced 1t too strong for the pco-
PIC 10 sign and he wrote or dictated
inc petltlon which l did send. and in
IL nc "orle that the boy was not of
average Intelligence and | fathercd
that petltlon and that assertion in the
pctitlon to the extent of using il and
never heard his intelligence or loclt
OF intelligence questioned until Nv
Mr. Lee Smell, although I believe now
Judge Watkins had information or
good reasons to believe that tho as
sertlon was true.
Ii anyone was dupcd or imposed
upon by Aubrey as to his Ignorance
1t was Judge Watkins. NV recolloc.
tion is and of which | am very posi
tive that the evidence was that An
prey Barrett picked up off of the
ground $l.5S. a watch and knife, the
property ct Mr.. Roach and when ar
rested had spent the money and moth
ing was said about the knife.
Albert and Aubrey both had said
'nc watch was given by Aubrey to
A'ncrt when they We're about five
niiicS from home the day after the
Killing, and that Aubrey spent the
money. l cannot think that the TWEEN
lS7tN slgners OF the citizens of Bar
rclts case which appeared in The
Vlrglnian Of the 9Th inst, could have
attended the trial.
Is 1t exactly fair or right in Won
gentlemen to say that Mr.. Lancaster
mas mlSlcd anyone. or that his arU-
Gle or statements have been mislnad
ing or false? Is It fair for YOU to usc
hercSay testimony or state what tho
twelve year old Barrett girl told Mr.
Smell when the girl ed not testify at
all? Is 1t making a fair impression
on the public for to speak of several
different larcenies Of which Albert
ana Aubrey Barrett may have pcrpc-
P'trated upon Mr.. Roach in discuss
ing this case and telling who helped
TO trace up and find out the facts in
regard thereto, and OF the several con
PROMISES, forgivings, etc, when none
Or these facts were in evidence? Is It
iair to try to prejudice this case by
the refusal of Albert's wife to give
information and such like things when
none Of this was brought out In evil
deucc?
No d3ubt, gentlemen, that you or 7
would have acted as Mr.. Roach did
after the wheat had been stolen prov
en- to he stolen and admitted to have
been stolen. If you or had undertake
Ell to watch or hold the guilty parties
until warrant could ho obtained for
their arrest. We doubles would have
pursued them and restrained them
when wo had no right so to do with
out warrant; nevertheless this does
not make 1T legal or right; and does
not that wrong doing or mistake miti
gate the Offer. Sc? Does not his aiding
his father when he was in peril and
his age mitigate the crimeo
Yours very respectfully,
w. l.. LANCASTER.
Farmville, Va, Sep 7.
(Richmond Virginian. Sept. 8, 1919