Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1923-08-23
BARRETT To RESIST
EXTRACTION To
SOUTH CAROLINA

| SuSCa COTTON broker 1Or WnOnl q
warrant charging the obtaining of
money under false pretenses has
been issued in South Carolina, will
resist extradition from Georgia, it
was made known at the state eX-
ecutive department Monday. Mr.,
Barrett's attorneys have requested
Governor Walker not to grant a
acquisition until he has given them
| hearing.
No requisition has yet been issued
in the case, but a hearing was held
before the governor of South Caro-
lima Monday.
The warrant, sworn out by Gus
| toner who alleges the loss of money
was an Outgrowth of the resent
failure of Barrett &, Co., in Augusta.
REQUISITION OPPOSED
BEFORE S. &. GOVERNOR
COLUMBIA, S. c., Aug. 21.-By
| the Associated Press)-Attorney for
four members of the bankrupt Au-
gusta cotton firm of Barrett
Co., appeared before Governor
Thomas C. Mcleod Monday to argue
against issuance Of a requisition
seeking to bring them to Aiken coun-
ty for trial on a charge of obtaining
goods under false pretenses. They
argued that the sum of $13,0O7, men
toned by c.. r. Lybrand of Wagon
er, S. c., who obtained the warrant,
in reality is disputed account, and
should have been placed before the
! United States district court which
has charge of the affairs of Barrett
& Co.
The warrant names Barrett &
Co., and Frank H. Barrett, Jul
ian Barrett, Thomas Barrett, Jr.,
and Thomas Getzen, members of the
| firm. It alleges that through false
representations Lybrand was in
duced to ship cotton to the firm in
Augusta.
| The accused were represented by
Claud N. Sapp and r. Beverly Her
| bert, of Columbia; J. M. Hull, Jr.,
Of Augusta, and ]. G. Salley, of AK
en-.
Assistant Attorney General ]. NJ
Daniel, and Solicitor w. M. SmoaH,
of Aiken, appeared for the state.
Attorney Hull, opening the ar5u-
ment for the Barretts, presented an
affidavit from Frank Barrett setting
forth details of the account of &. II
Lybrand and ccntending that he ac
count was in reality that OF j. w.
Lybrand, father of c. r. He assert
ed that the item was merely a dis
puted item III transactions totalllng
nearly $500, 000, and pointed out that
Barrett & Co. had paid Lybrand
$3.50
The validity of the warrant also
was questioned by Mr.. Hull, who as
serted that if was signed by j. c.
Lybrand, brother of c. r. LybranG
and not by the complainant.
Mr.. Hull also denied that Frank
Barrett ever had been In WAGNER
but Attorney W. NJ. Smoak, who rep
resents Lyhrand in the case, inter
rupted with the statment that his
client could show that Mr. Barrett
made the alleged false representa-
lions in Columbia during visit TO
this city.
c. r. Lybrand, who the warrant
alleged was defrauded, did not at
tend the hearing. His father and
brother were present, however.
Besides the affidavit of Frank
Barrett, affidavits from the other
three accused men were presented
making general denials of the
charges. Thomas r. Barrett, junior,
third and Julian Barrett admitted
going to Wagner in April( 1922.
They went, they said, at the re
quest of j. w. Lybrand to buy in
some Of Lybrand's property at
bankrupt sale. .,
1t was alleged in the affidavit of
Frank Barrett that the account OF
c. r. Lybrand was opened on Feb
ruary 2, 1922 and that j. w. Ly-
brand went into bankruptcy the
next day.
An affidavit signed by Harry M.
| Edwards, South Carolina referee in
bankruptcy, was presented in which
! Mr.. Edmunds said that in response
to a question as to how he was
getting along, Lybrand had told him
he had accumulated 1000 bales of
cotton carried by the Barretts' in
| the name of his son, j. P. Doughty,
William M. Butts and T. A. Ausley,
! three Augusta cotton factors, made
! affidavits stating that j. w. Ly-
brand had told them that he lost
| $4,000 in the Barrett failure.
Thetwo chief items in dispute in
the $4,000 claim of Lybrand were
said by defendants to have been a
note for $4,000, signed by r. l..
Lybrand, a nephew of ]. w. Ly
brand and endorsed by the latter,
and $500 advanced by the Barretts
to bid in the Lybrand property.
Assistant Attorney General Dan
iel, arguing for issuance of the req
uisition stated that if the allesa
tons made in the Lybrand affidav-
| it were true, he considered the
showing sufficient to justify the is
suance of requisition papers by
| Governor Mcleod.
| Attacks Of defendants, counsel on
the validity of the warrant were
answered by Mr.. Smoak, who follow
ed Mr.. Daniel, by the declaration
| that under the law of South Carolina
an arrest warrant could be sworn
out by any person acting on infor-
nation and belief and that it would
be sufficient. under those circum-
stances.
j. c. Lybrand, Mr.. Smoak assert
ed, was working for his brother, c.
r. and shipping cotton for the lat
! ter. wherefore, the lawyer contend
! ed, he was familiar with the circum-
stances alleged in the affidavit.
Thomas and Julian Barrett went
| to Wagner and there made repre-
sensations which resulted in the Ly-
brands cotton being shipped to
Barrett and company, entirely. in