Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1917-08-11
WANTS COMMUNICATION
FOR YOUNG BARRETT


been sentenced to die August 81 for
the murder of w. II. Roach, in Char
lOtte county.
Mr.. Lancaster, counsel for the
youth, submits the lowing state
ment Oh the case:
The undersigned was personally
present and took notes in the case OF
Commonwealth VS.. Albert Barrett,
charged with the murder of w. T..
Roach in the circuit court of Char.
lotte county, and as the papers give
SO different an account Of the facts
as existed, l will try to have you pub
lish Il correct statement.
albert Barrett and his son made
in substance. at the trial the same
statement as they first made to the
parties who caught and arrested
them and all Of the witnesses who
were placed apon the stand by the
prosecution rcIaIcd as the voluntary
confessions of Albert Barrett and son,
i'll substance, what they stated upon
the witness stand, which statement
and evidence, for there was none
other in conflict, that Albert and his
son at about midnight went to the
wheatiicld of Mr.. Roach and stole a
load OF wheat in the straw and re-
moved it to the wheat field Of Albert
Barrett. The next morning Mr.
Roach and Mr.. Cullen, OF Collins,
tracked the wheat from the field of
Mr.. Roach to Albert Barrctt'S and
idenlncd the wheat. Then they COM
Eencd Albert and his son to return
the wheat, whereupon all four OF the
parties were again in Albcrt's wheat
field, Mr.. Cullen, by request Of Mr.
nnl,
Albert tried to settle or compromise
by offering to pay Mr.. Roach rather
than be prosecuted, but he refused,
thercupon Albert ran and Mr.. Roach
ran after him. Mr.. Roach fell, arose
aud continued pursuit. Albert, after
running some $50 yards, fell over n
brush pile and Mr.. Roach caught him
while down and was choking him.
when he, Albert, called for his son to
come and strike Mr.. Roach or help
him. us son took up q chestnut
stick (not an iron barr and struck
Mr.. Roach oil the back of his head.
The stick had knot OH it and the
lick pierced to the brain. The father
said that next day, after he and his
son had gone and were about five
miles from home. his son gave him
MIR. RCach'S watch and the boy kept
S1.5S OF his money. The boy spent
the money and he had on the watch
when arrested. The boy says hat
when Mr.. Roach fell in running no
dropped his watch, money and knife
and he picked them up and gave the
watch to his father when he was
ABOUT five miles from homo the next
day. DR.. Walker said the wound or
lick was a fatal blow and that some
of the brains OF Mr.. Roach we're
oozing cut. Albert turned Mr.. Roach
of Of him and grabbed a rock the
size Of his two fists and struck Mr..
Roach three blows. two on the head
and one On the chest. Then Albert
lifted Mr.. Roach's body some five
steps, having hold of one leg and one
arm and deposited beside log be-
tween it and a small pine tree anl
there covered it with leaves. Dr.
Walker stated that the three wounds
bled scarcely any, if at all, the most
blood coming from the wound on the
back OF the head, where the brains
were ooZing. From appearances, Mr.
Roach was dead or the blood was not
circulating freely when the o.hcr
wounds were inflicted. The body was
In a state of putrefaction when he eX-
amncd it, especially about the abdo-
men. He said, also, that one Of his
hips was dislCcated.
OFFERED THREE INSTRUCTIONS.
"Thc counsel for Albert offered
three Instructions: Cd That every
homicide is prima facia, murder in
the second degree, etc. GU That if
thn jnrv hn1;npal
that the killing was done in the heat
or blood CT upon sudden passion in
an ARRAY it could not be more than
voluntary manslaughtcr. CD That if
one was arrested, detained or illegal
ly restrained or imprisoned without
warrant in a case where a warrant
was necessary. etc, that the party ar
rested, etc, has a right to resist and
with such provocation if he killed
the other who was performing the il
legal act OF arrcst--that it would be
nc greater degree OF homicide than
voluntary manslaughtcr
The court gave the first instruc-
tons and refused the third or last
instruction without opposition by
counsel for the state and refused to
allow counsel to read to him any law
In support Of the instruction. Counsel
asked the court if he would change
the instruction or strike out any OBJ
jcctional portion, Or allow him to sub
nit the instruction to the attorneys
for the state, and the court refused
same. Whcrcupon counsel excepted
and objected to the ruling Of tho
court, but subsequently his counsel,
after an interview with the prisoner
and after his conviction by the YER
dict and tho judgment of the court,
and being informed that he, Albert
Barrett, was without means and a
paupcr, asked the clerk of the court
to allow him to withdraw the instruc-
tion No. 3 which was refused by the
court. which request was granted by
tho clerk and said instruction, which
was refused is now in the hands of
the attorney who defended Albert
The counsel for Albert Barrett made
an error, mistake and was guiltv of