The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-08-26
DEFENSE LOSES
ON TWO POINTS
Move to Exclude Letter to
Binford Girl and Evidence
of Wound.
BOTH MOTIONS ARE
OVERRULED BY JUDGE
Attorneys Note Exceptions
in Each Case After Cit
ing Law Supporting
Claims

The feature of the opening hour or
the day yesterday in the trial of Henry
Clay Beattie In the circuit court or
Chesterfield county was the arguing
of two motions for the elimination or
certain evidence sought TO be intro
duced by the prosecution on Thurs
day.
One of the motions. argued by At
tOrney H NJ. Smith, for the defense.
was for the striking from the record
of all reference to the letter purported
10 have been written by the accused
to Beulah Binford, the authorship or
which Beattie had admitted at the
coroner's inquest Mr.. Smith quoted
section 1901 of the Code of Virginia
designed to protect witnesses before g.
coroner jury from the use against
them of such evidence as they might
give before such jury should 1t in
eliminate them and cause them -
he themselves tried. Mr.. Smith argued
that under this section of the code,
the letter had been irreguiarly intro
duced and admitted while DR.. Loving
was on the stand. Beattie, after his
own evidence had been given before
the coroner's jury. and while Beuiah
Binford was on the stand, had voiun-
teered the statement that he wrote
the letter in question. Mr.. Smith
point was that as Mr.. Beattie was
witness before the coroner's jury. his
admission at the time OF authorship
Of the letter should not be taken as
evidence when testified to by Coroner
Loving before the trial court.
Mr.. Smith said that the accused was
before the coroner's jury as sus-
pected person and had come out hold
~ and eandidlv in his statement as 10
the letter In affording the jury all the
n could TO arrive al Il
correct conclusion.
The judge said. in ruling on the
question: Gentlemen. the court
thinks that when witness is called
before eoroner's jury that any state
ment made under oath before the
coroner's inquest should not he used
against him on bis trial, but That sdcn
a statement as the one Indicated, Fol-
unteered after he had left the witness
stand. does not come within the pur-
view If the statute. On the evidence
now I'm. the court denies the motion.
The defense noted an exception
Another Motion Oycrruled.
Attorney Hill Carter, FOR the de-
Tense. then spoke on the motion MADE
to strike out from the record all cyl
denca relating to the wounds IN the
head and brains Of the deceased, On
the ground that the Indictment alleF-
ed that death ensued from gunshot
wound on the face. The last phYsi-
clan 10 testify, argued the lawyer, and
said tina, If the wound had been cor
fned To the face It could not have
produced death. The fact that the
wound penetrated into the brain
urged tho attorney. ~ not SET out IN
the Indictment Il take II" said Nj.
Carter. that nothing can he inferred.
taxa II that q wound on the race
ae alleged IS not sufficient TO cause
death and move the court 10 eS-
cluae eli testimony which ascrihes
death 10 any other cause than that
n occurred from a wound in the face
Ruling on Mr.. Carriers motion the
court stated that there can ne n"
question that It IL necessary To alege
with great particularly the nature OF
the wound from which death ensured
He could not say. however. as mat
ter Of law that II was required that
| an the rnetes and bounds ~ a wound
| should be described In an Indictment
| Motion of counsel for defense was
overruled and the ruling Of the court
was excepted 70.