The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1911-11-16
Jam
IN J66GES NDs

Tor q writ OF error and new trial
which is now In the hands of the Vir-
ginia supreme Court OF Appeals, and
which probably will be passed upon
before the end OF this week, contains
seventeen alleged grounds Of error on
the part OF Walter A. Watson, the
trial judge.
In the course of the great in
suisition. which resulted In the couvic-
tion of the alleged wife murderer and
his sentence to death, his attorneys,
Harry M. Smith and Hill Carter,
noted numerous exceptions-probaoly
hfty or more. But when they came
to prepare the petition for the appeal
they discarded the great majority of
these and reduced the number TO
seventeen.
Bills of exception, as a general
thing, involve the most technical
points Of law, and usually il takes a
man well versed in the principles of
Jurisprudence to understand the
points they adduce. In Beattie's case
however, there are at least six or
seven exceptions whose import may
readily be grasped by the lay public.
Perhaps the most interesting
of these pertains TO a thrilling
and sensational portion of the
speech OF Louis Wendenburg, who
assisted commemorative Attor-
ney Gregory in the prosecution.
In his final argument before the
jury Mr.. Wendenburg, with trc-
substance: "Ir you declare this
man innocent, then let the State
dig up the remains of JeteF Phil
lips. Thomas j. Cluverlus and
Samuel McCue and apologize TO
them"
These startling words had hardly
fallen from the lips of Mr.. Wenden-
burg before Mr.. Carter was on his
feet protesting and asking the court
to strike them from the record, on
N1A a hot
proper and calculated to prejudice the
jury.
Judge Watson declined to take any
action in the matter ana an exception
was forthwith noted.
1t will not be amiss to say, in con-
nection with the language of Mr.. Wen
denburg, that it was not original with
ham. he used the words of q certain
eut-of-town newspaper which had
worked oft the figure of speech in
question.
A Neat Point to Decide.
In delivering their arguments be-
fore juries lawyers are expected to
stick more or less closely to the re-
cord of the case, but necessarily they
must have good deal of latitude. es-
Pecially in the matter of their rhe-
teric.
Judge Watson did not think Mr..
Wendenburg's hair-raising apostrophe
exceeded the bounds of legal propri-
dses not think so now,
The QUESTION undoubtedly is a neat
enc that Wiil require the best of judg-
nent FOR decision. Should il be de-
eided I'm favor of the defense il might
nave the effect of making judges the
eensors Of lawyers arguments. just as
the postal authorities have under
taken te be fensors Of the press.
The fact that Aessrs. Smith and
Uarter have raised this point as one
of the seventeen laid before the Su-
presne Court plainly indicates. how
ever, that they think there's a good
deal In IT,"
Qualifications CT Jurors
Feur 81 the ether exceptions pertain
to tie qualifications Of some of the
men WIS., sat en- the jury. These men.
IL will be recalled, were examined as
to thoir qualifications for jury service.
TAtE lane of preliminary questioning is
ca1led the examination en- "Voir dire"
As the Beattie case, long before the
arreisDnent Of the accused, had at
tractea the attention Of newspapers
throughout the land, IL was natural
that the veniTsmsn examined on their
vstr d1rss' should. in most Instances,
admtt that they had read accounts of
the oEAAS ana the hsaOsA.
Ihis nSessSitated q close line of
SueSleAzs rs ~ whether or not they
80 rorned any opinions from tho
newspaper rsports. Judge Watson ex-
eroasSd ths almost caution in selecting
nen for the panel, but his rulings, in
several tAstaneeA were nevertheless
excepted -. And now they come up
en- appeal.
Testimony Of Mrs. Owen.
TIVE sf the exceptions noted pertain
to the testimony of Mrs. r. v. Owen.
The mother of the murdered woman,
whe was examined at some length as
to the relations existing between Beat
. MI aIA 10 4 h. 4, IN
OF the couple.
And, by the way, Ii was for its re-
pert OF this testimony, which, in the
eyes OF the prosecution was regarded
as al-important that The Richmond
Evening Journal was indicted.
The design of questioning Mrs.
Gwen so closely was to show the at
Atuoe or Beatue towards his wife.
Necessarily some of the interrogatories
Pertained to the homelier and more
intimate domestic relations existing
between the two, but neither the ques-
tions nor answers We're in any way re-
VoltinE
Counsel fer the prisoner maintain.
AeWeVsT. that the questions and an
Swers were Irrelevant and calculated to
treJuolce the cause of the accused.
ana hence the two exceptions.
II does not appear that Judge Wat
sons action in hurFying the case to
triai-oF rather, in refusing to grant a
AOu6 OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES the subject of
a bill of exception.
The ether points noted by Messrs
smith and Carter are somewhat tech
nical in their nature and need not be
explained in detail here.
Consider Action OF the Judge.
The action Of Judge Watson in re-
rusins to grant q new trial on the
ground that the verdict was contrary
to law and evidence also constitutes q
sreund of exception-in fact, consti-
tutes the basis Of the entire appeal.
To weigh this point, the appellate
judge nust take the record in its en-
hrety-there's 1,7ee pages of steno-
graphic rePort-and weigh the evil
donce.
judge Watson. according to his own
statements made In open court, gave
the prisoner the henefit not only OF
every doubt, but Of every close point,
anS therefore, it Is reasonable to as
sumo that he expects the higher court
to sustain him. At any rate he is
quite easy OF conscience.
Time and again ne stated from the
Sench that he had been guided largely
IN his rulings by the full and detailed
report of the Supreme Court in the