Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-09-16
APPEAL IS DENIED IN
Case OF BARRETT BOY
Without Counsel, He Noted No Eek.
ceptiOn on Which to Base
His Claim.
JUDGE HUNDLEY REVERSED
His Contention That Trial Court Had
No Power to Improve Life I'M
prisonmcnt, Instead of Death Sen.
tence, Held to Be Without Merit.

Aubrey Barrett, the s"ventecn-year-
old negro boy under sentence Of death
for his participation In the murder OF
w. T. Roach, Charlotte County
farmer. for which his father has al
ready paid with his life the penalty
for his part In the crime. will be
executed at the expiration of tho
thirty day respite granted him by Gov
ernor Stuart. unless executive clcmency
is obtained. the Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals having refused the
petition for writ of error and SUPER
sedeas in his behalf.
In refusing the petition, however.
the appellate court directs attention
to the fact that the record In the case
contains none of the evidence and dis
closes nothing Of what took place at
tho trial. except that Albert and Au-
brey Barrett father and son. were
Jointly indicted for the killing. Upon
their arraignmcnt they pleaded not
guilty and elected to he tried sepa-
ratcly. After the conviction of the
father. the son withdrew ais plea. the
record shows. and entered Il plea Of
guilty
JUDGE HUNDLEY's VIEW
CONTRADICTED by COURT
In Its opinion. the Supreme Court
contradicts tho statement OF Judge
George j. Hundley. the trial Judge, In
which he said during the controversy
over tho case recently that under the
statute governing such cases. he could
NOT moi NIX e. the degree of guilt. and could
only nix tho penalty at death No
record Of the boys trial was made, but
Iater counsel attempted to reproduce
from memory as much Of the proceed
lngs as possible for presentation TO
me appellate court with the petition
Tor writ of error.
The father and son were ssntonc.a
10 execution on August 81. but Gov
ernor Stuart granted the son a thirtv
aay respite. that he might look into
mo case. since at that time the nero
hao no way in which to bring the
Lis,'r before the Supreme Court The
Hisher court refused to review tho
ease OF the elder Barrett. and he won,
~ ms oeath on August 81 The tbIrtv-
uay respite granted the son will ~
pire September so. "a
appear Tor clemency TO the Governor
On neha!t OF the boy is made on the
ground that he Is not We, nv
years old. was tried witbon, -,
"hnout counsel. and was ignoran, ~
me forms OF law. and SO noted M
exceptions on which to have an an.
peal.
OPINION OF SUPREME
COURT OF APPEALS
The opinion OF the Supreme Court
OF Appeals is follows:
In the Supreme Court OF Appeals.
held at the courthouse thereof. in the
city OF Staunton. on Thursday. the 18th
day of September. 1917:
The petition of Aubrey Barrett for
writ OF error and supersedeas to a
Judgment pronounced by the Circuit
Court of Charlotte County on the 26th
day or July. 1917. In prosecution by
the Commonwealth against the petit
toner for felony, murder in the first
degree. whereby II was cons'L =rcd by
the court that the said Aubrey Bar
rett be electrocuted according to law.
having been maturely considered and
the transcript of the record OF the
judgment aforesaid seen and Inspected
the court being of the following opin-
ion:
THE record In this case contains
none OF the evidence and discloses moth
Ing OF what took place at the trial.
except that the petitioner and Albert
Barrett We're jointly indicted, and
upon arraignment pleaded not guilty
and elected to be tried separately
After conviction Of Albert Barrett. the
record shows that Aubrey Barrett
withdrew his plea of not guilty and
entered plea OF guilty. and by his
consent in person. entered In open
court, elected to be tried by the court,
and the attorney for the Commonwealth
consented thereto. and the court after
hearing the testimony found him guilty
OF murder in the first degree and
sentenced him to be electrocuted
THE record does not disclose the
relation between the two Barretts, the
evidence relative to the murder, the
age of Aubrey, the circumstances at
tending the entry of the plea of guilty,
nor any objection or exception to the
action OF the trial court.
Tho assignment of error that the
trial court had no power TO impose the
punishment OF life Imprisonment, in
stead of death. is without merit, as
section of the Constitution provides
that. in case of this kind. the court
shall hear and determine the case
and that invests the court will all the
power and discretion vested in the
jury by the statute prescribing the
punishment for murder: doth reject
said petition and refuse said writ of
error and supersedess. the effect of
which is to affirm the judgment of