The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-08-28
Peoples Forum
Editor Virginian:
The Case Of Aubrey Barrett.

Sir,-1n re Barrett murder cases:
wrote a statement of the facts in
the cases which was published in The
Richmond Virginian of August /.
! have read the statements and
comments published in the News, of
Lynchburg, and what Judge Humid
ley says in the News Leader of Au-
gust 81. and in the Times Dispatch
of the 2Sth. ] must say that Judge
Hundley is mistaken in his recolleC-
ton as that / in open court an =.
nounced that the boy, Aubrey Bar
rett, wished to change his plea from
not guilty to guilty. On the contrary,
instead of withdrawing his first plea,
withdrew my services and express
" stated that ! would represent him
no longer and that ! would not as
sumo the responsibility of advising
what plea he should be tried upon.
never waived jury in his case and
had no more to do with it in Char
lottc.
The boy hesitated for some time
when asked by the court If he wished
to change his plea to guilty Mir.
Light, assistant prosecuting attorney,
bears me out in this If his statement
in the Lynchhurg News Is correct.
As to the boys age, I think that the
testimony was that he was between
sixteen and seventeen. Since the
trial n le3t was torn from the ifaF-
rett family Bible, which leaf is now
in my possession, showing the date
Of marriage and ages Of family. the
age OF Albert Barrett to be thirty
seven and the boy Aubrey to have
been born July I. 1901, making him
in his seventeenth year.
The evidence did not show that
Aubrey Barrett struck the blow which
felled Mr.. W. T. Roach to the ground
n no I'd nc 40
ceased over on the back and beat him
in the face with a rock till, as the
father said, he finished him nor was
there evidence that they admitted
/ that they had been caught in the
mans wheat field. stealing his wheat
and that the boy came up behind the
mans back while he was scuffling
with the father and struck him t.
the ground with a large stick. nor
did the doctor say that the blow said
/ to be struck with the stick was not
struck with the 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 opinion. was with a sharper
instrument.
The evidence along this line was
that the night before the killing the
Barretts had gone with their wagon
at midnight and stolen from Mr.. W
/ T. Roach's wheat field load OF
wheat, that ROACH and Mr.. Collins
at about a. NJ. tracked the wagon
and wheat from the field where taken
and stolen TO the wheat field Of Al
bert Barrett's, that Albert and the
boy acknowledged the larceny, that
7 Mr. Roach sent Mr.. Collins, as he
I Collins, stated, for a warrant OF ar
rest. that Albert Barrett tried to com
promise or pay Mr.. Roach to drop
the larceny prosecution. Mr. Roach
/ properly refused to accept PROPOSE
! ton, whereupon Albert ran and Mr.
/ Roach after him. Albert fell over n
pile of brush after running $50 yards.
and Mr.. Roach caught him while
down and was choking him. Albert
: called for Aubrey to help him. then
| II was that Aubrey picked up a chest
nut stick with knot on II (size was
never mentioned or inquired into)
, and struck the back Of the head for
) DIR. Walker said the brains were ooz
: ing out or the skull where the wound
was on the back OF the head, and
he said that the wound. If not fatal.
was sufficient to be fatal. tbs infer
ence was that that wound was the
fatal wound, because the doctor said
the wounds on the frontal portion of
the head bled very little if any. The
! evidence was that Albert made those
wounds with rock as large AS his
two fists. Or. Walker said that the
: rock wounds would have proved fatal,
$ had the stick wound not been fatal.
} If ! was base enough to desert my
client, had I thought l could have
done him a service, l was not egotis-
' tic. bold or base enough to think that
= could do him good when ! had
2 made so great failure for the father.
/ had offered an instruction which
= | thought from the evidence should
g have been allowed and which would
/ have prevented the jury from finding
the prisoner guilty of murder either
= In the first or second degree, but the
2 court refused and rejected the same.
: and would not permit me TO cite law
r or argue n support Of instruction
The court would not even permit
/ me To comment upon the fact that
: Mr.. Roach was pursuing, arrestinE.
4 impr!souing and OBTAINING a man
i without a warrant in a case where
: warrant WAS necessary, And my
third attempt to do so was threat
ened by fine Judge Hundley terms
the Killing Of Roach a horrible muir
Z der. | consider no murder has been
g committed under the law and testi-
1 mony; for the killing was not wilful,
t deliberate and premeditated.
w. l. LANCASTER.
Farmville Va.