Biography
Avery Kimrey was one of seven Burlington, North Carolina textile workers prosecuted over mill-dynamiting incidents after the September 1934 general textile strike. On December 4, 1934, he received a two-year sentence that was suspended on conditions of good behavior and appearances at the February and November terms of Alamance County Superior Court. He accepted those conditions. The North Carolina Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on November 20, 1935.
The Daily Worker of February 2, 1935, page 4, reports the International Labor Defense's entry into the Burlington mill-dynamiting case and its plans for a North Carolina Supreme Court appeal by March. Anna Damon announced the defense after an investigation by ILD attorneys. The stated grounds were conviction against the weight of the evidence, allegedly fabricated confessions and judicial prejudice. The article names all seven defendants, including Avery Kimrey, and reports sentencing on December 4, 1934. These are the defense organization's contemporary allegations and plans; the report does not itself establish a successful appeal or any new custody endpoint.
W. T. Couch, in The Carolina Magazine, December 1935, printed pages 21-25 (PDF pages 101-105), describes his investigation of the Burlington dynamite prosecution. He reports a trial from November 28 to December 4, 1934, attacks the inconclusive track evidence and the selection of 15-18 additional talesmen by deputy John Leath at the prosecution's request, and identifies four Uniontown, Pennsylvania investigators: S. E. Howard, D. P. Stewart, K. R. Delph and J. R. (Randy) Jones. He says they kept prosecution witnesses Charlie McCullom, H. F. Pruitt and Jerry Furlough together in one Alamance Hotel room from the Monday before trial through its conclusion. Couch alleges compromised testimony and possible prejudice; he expressly says he did not establish who committed the dynamiting. His March 1935 request to Frances Perkins was referred to Textile Labor Relations Board chairman Walter P. Stacy, from whom he had received no answer. A note dated December 19 reports four defendants on bond, Blaylock still jailed for inability to obtain bond, Overman serving a separate post-trial offense and Kimrey at liberty on a suspended sentence. The defense sought new material evidence for a new trial and contemplated a federal constitutional appeal; these were efforts, not established outcomes. Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Carolina_magazine_%28serial%29_%28IA_carolinamagazine65univ%29.pdf
Labor Defender, February 1935, PDF page 20: The Burlington report individually names the seven textile defendants and alleges beatings and drugging in jail before a jury excluding union members. It identifies Anderson as Piedmont Textile Council president with an imposed eight-to-ten-year hard-labor term. The accusations of planted dynamite and abuse are the defense magazine’s claims; the collective 27-year total is not allocated as individual time served. No new physical release date is supplied. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/1935/v11n02-feb-1935-orig-LD.pdf#page=20
Labor Defender, March 1935, PDF page 9: The Burlington report prints R. K. Kimrey in the same seven-defendant case, describing his father and uncle as prominent union men and alleging changed testimony about what he knew of a dynamite trip. It reports a two-year sentence suspended. This is preserved as a printed name variant associated with the existing Avery Kimrey case, without silently replacing his identity or treating suspension as imprisonment served. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/1935/v11n03-mar-1935-orig-LD.pdf#page=9
