The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1911-09-14

agraersa the road became at once
Npert Opinion.
Six experts declared that they had
found traces of blood upon the gaso-
line tank. and believed that blood
spilled in the seat OF the car could
trictle 20 the grOUnd. but the Jury
men examined thcNcar themselves, and
are believed TO ha(e seen that the
large pool of blood could not have
dripped from the cartunless the auto
mobile had remained Stationar'- on the
turnpike for not less than an hour.
The testimony of the Bon Air dane
ing boys viii probably be accepted
/ by the jurymen at its fun value. While
some OF the boys appear to be under
the impression that the car they pass
ed near the scene OF the crime was
that belonging to Charles kaStelberg,
il has been practically proved that Mr..
kaStelberg'S car was back in the
garage before 1880 o'clock that night,
while the murder was not committed
until nearly thirty minutes later.
Moreover, the boys are sure that the
car they passed was equipped with a
yellow top and that the woman they
saw standing on the running board
had on a loose-ftting raincoat and
wore no hat. kaStelberg'S car has a
black top. The woman with him that
night had on a white dress Mrs
Beattie wore a raincoat. The oman
with KaStelberg wore hat. Mrs.
Beattie was bare-headed.
Disregarding the proof Z motive
and practically all other circumstances
the case was proved by the prosecu-
tiOn-if proved at all-when it was
established that Henry was with Paul
on the Thursday night before the
murder-the night during which Paul
claims to have promised to set a gun
for his cousin.
Telephone Conversation.
Henry unheSitatingly declared that
he had not telephoned for Paul TO
meet him at Short and Main Streets;
he swore that he did not visit Nc
EvOys bar with his cousin; he swore
that he did not see Paul at all that
night; and yet half a dozen witnesses
took oath to the statements that Henry
did telephone Paul; that Henry did
meet Paul at Short and Main Streets;
that Henry did visit the saloon with
his cousin, and finally that Henry took
his cousin home in his automobile.
one of the questions which the jury
Will have to consider in this connection
will be this: If the accused attempted
to establish falSehoOd with what in
tent was the attempt made? And also
did the accused fear to admit the
true facts, realizing that they would
incriminate him?
All these pOints-and many others,
though the others are of less material
Value-Will be brought out in the
argument of the attorneys represent
ing the prosecution, and every argu-
ment possible will be advanced by the
defense to bolster up the ingenius, but
rather questionable story related by
the accused.
Public opinion is unanimous. 1t is
useless to deny that the public long
ago convicted the young man. Ac-
cOrding to the present status Of the
case the jury will be unable to take
halfway ground The Jury must re-
n Of in ho
degree or unequivocally acquit the ac-
cused. What it will do will not be
known for several days, but the pub
lie may rest assured that the jury
citizens of Chesterfield county-will
base its conclusions upon the evidence
and render Judgment only after ma
ture consideration.
A FATAL DENIAL.
Some imp of perSeVeristy impelled
Henry g. Beattie, Jr., when he under
went his cross-eXaminatiOn at Ches-
terield Courthouse Monday, TO swear
mat ne had neither seen nor COM
municated with his cousin, Paul, on
the Thursday preceding the murder
of his wife.
The prisoner witness was warned at
Che time that the prosecution could
successfully contradict such an as
sertiOn. but he coOlly and deliberate
lutte self-cOnfldence and logged tenac-
itV of purpose. he denied his kinsman's
statement 10 the effect that the two
had met on the day-or rather night
i'm question.
The sequel proved that Henry c.
Beattie, Jr., made a disastrous mis-
take when he took this stand. Better
TAR il would have been for him had
( he admitted such a meeting and Of
iered a fiimsy excuse for it.
But no, he denied it altogether and
laid himself open as a target for
the state.
esterday the Commemorative law
-0~s literally overwhelmed the de-
! tense with testimony tending to show
that Paul and Henry actually did
meet ON the Thursday before the
! homicide. As many as half "A dozen
/ tnesses lad something 10 say on
/ We subject And ali OF them swOre
statements which secsliosly gave
! tha &c to the prisoner.
What one witness did not know
/ ahOuJ the meeting in question, an
Other did. And the ensemble of testi-
/ -onY on this point left reasona bic
4 -opnds for but one cOncluSiOn-that
/ senry g. Beattie's memory either de-
! lived him most outra geOusly or thai
/ al deliberately turned his back on the
| truth.
Had it been a case of man agains
-~"n in such a controversy, the ac.
cused might have held his own, bu
I the numerical odds were all in favor
! of those aSsailing the Veracity Of the
! supposed wife-murderer. They no
only took issue with the prisoner, bu
| -~ere circumstantial in their recOllec
tiOns Of the meeting.
PuuCtured NeblettS Statement. Too
And before the taking of evidence
I in the great murder trial ended, tn,
| state, to all appearances, had ais
! punctured beyond repair the testi
mony Of Ernest Neblett, the man VIII,
swore that on the Sunday preceding
the crime he saw Paul Beattie in tn
/ cement house, near Mayos Bridge
with a single-barrel shotgun in hi
hand.
When Mr.. Neblett gave his testi
mOny to this effect he hit the prosecu
ton a blow which temporarily mad
it lose wind, but the States lawyer
were not beyond recovery.
Slowly and deliberately an effOT
was put forth to prove that Mr.. Neb
lett, however sincere he might hav
been in his convictions, was wrong i
| his theories as to what he saw tina
Sunday morning.
The witness bears a good name i
the SOuthside and many testified a
10 his reputation for truth, but yes