New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-08-27
STATE TRIES TO SHOW
AMT BEATT|E CASE MOTIVE
.tiltse
Hint of Fear OF Fathers Learn.
inq Of Relations with
Miss Binford.
BOYS CONTINUE TESTIMONY
Prisoner Taken Back to Rich
mond to Confer with Counsel
Defendant Apparently
Losing Nonchalance.

Losing NouCQdldOCC-
Chesterfield Court House. Va Aug 8-
considerable progress was made to-day ny
the prosecution in the case of Henry CLAY
Pesttie jr.. who is on trial for his life.
charged with the murder Of his young wife
A. = lonely spot on the Midlothian turruike
lsSt month.
a number Of important witnesses. includ-
ipr one OF the detectives who had been
r-ominent in the case from the beginning.
and several boys, the prosecutions strong
CARDS. we're heard. Just before adjourn
poent u the court few minutes before
o'clock this afternoon, an application by
Beatties counsel was granted bv Judge
Watson that the accused man he permitted
10 60 20 Richmond. so that the defence
r,irh. have - conference over SUNDAY and
save time" in preparing the cross-exa nina
ton for tho reconvening Of court Henry
lay BesttiC. ir., was whisked back 10
Richmond. cheerfIlly waving from his
automobile 20 passcrs by whom he recoC-
1.zed.
There we're many tense moments for the
prisoner as the prosecution. through the
testimony Of Detective L. l.. Scherer par
l.
tor which he is alleged 70 have had with
Beatue concerning Beulah Binford the
-i1 in tho case.
Hand Of Prosecution Evident.
plainly evident was the hand Of the
.rosecUton to-day IN endeayoring 10 show
Tho Underlying motive for the murder-the
fear ~ Henry Clay Beattie. r.. that his
father might learn Of the resumption Of re-
'arions with Miss Binford and an alleged
physical silment Of Beattie a. the time Of
rho murder The court, I'm fact discern
-irs tho intention Of the prosecution 10 IN
Void this mart OF the mystery. asked per-
mission from the lawyers Of both sides 70
,ofer The discussion Of this point on the
stand until another occasion when d, her
witnesses. including Dr. Mann whose tes-
timony In this connection was stricken
,lt four days ago, might be recalled.
The commonwealth drew tight the lines
or c'rouwstantal evidence when it brought
'1 The stand coaSecutiyely d half-dozen
youths who were returning from q dance on
mo night NJ the murder and stopped at the
spectacle nj the -tstionary car. the man
working on the hood and the woman stand
'rg "r the running board. one Of them.
". e. Svdncr identified The Beat,ie car
brought 20 the courthouse for a first in
srecuon 10y the jury. as the Identical one.
both as % make and fittings. which ne and
.. companions saw that night
Sydner was on the stand twice. but il
was not until the second time. which was
a. o. the jurys inspection OF the car. that
the prosecution asked him whether or not
t"e uoorS on the car he saw were detached
lom tine machine. he said he remembered
.xactly that they were, also identifying its
khaki coiored mood.
Eoy's Testimony mistaken.
The defence attempted by series #
sharp questions 10 indicate that Sydner.
having made no reference TO the doors in
bis morning testimony. was inspired dur
ns the luncheon recess TO emphasize that
point a the GROWING feature Of his
identification only after the jury had ex-
aninec The Beattie car and noticed the
conspicuous absence OF both doors The
defence insinuated that the Prosec utor
had called Svdner's attention TO the doors.
uut tre boy said that ne had remarked on
then before
AID sX boys told the same story Of the
woman on The running board and fixed the
hour Of their passage az almost coincident
with tho hour of the murder. and the
prosecution. through Detective Scherer's
testimony later iu the day. added TO this
trend Of proof the assertion that Beattie's
".ie was Not shot while seated beside him.
a. tho prisoner AYERS. but while standing
in the road
clos. .. .H Was Detective Scherers
rs-rff.tz frrouefefeur and