The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-11-15
FOR FREEDOM.
Keegan'S Petition for a
New Trial Heard.
Slight Delay Caused by a Dis
appointing Witness
Petitioners COunselS' Brief a Long
0ne--Att0rney-Genera Reply.

teson and Associate Justices Stiffness and
Tillinghast were on The bench.
The large GROVE was attracted by the
fact that the petition of Lawrence Kee-
gan, found guilty by a jury OF the muir
der of Emily Cham bers, for a new trial,
was to be heard. Keegan was not pres
emit.
The first case called was the one the
latter was interested in. f.. {. Pierce,
OF counsel tor the petitioner, addressed
the court saying that he regretted that
il might be necessary for him to ask for
permission to introduce testimony at a
later date. He recited the circumstances
under which the hearing on the petition
for a new trial for KeegaD was set down
for today and then said that a witness,
it was expected, would have been present
today, at the opening of the court. who
would give testimony OF a new and inn
portant nature. but that the witness has
as yet failed TO appear.
In answer TO a question from Attorney
General Dubois, MIR. Pierce stated that,
from statements made TO him, he be-
lieved this witness would testify that
he had seen Mrs. Chambers on the even
ing of the 9th OF September, the night
she was murdered, in Scituate, in the
company of a man other than the petit
tioner for a new trial; at a later hour
than the testimony of the State fixes the
time OF Keegau's being seen with her.
Attorney General Dubois said that he
would not object to delay and of course
he would expect to have time given him
to investigate the story of this new wit
ness.
might go on and that the testimony Of
this new witness might be Investigated
later on.
The court was not disposed to hear the
case in part and suggested a postpone
ment OF the hearing.
Mr.. Pierce then stated that the new
witness TO whom he had referred would
have TO sec the picture OF Mrs. Chambers
before he could tell whether or not she
was the woman whom he saw under ex-
traordinary circumstances with a man in
S~cituate on the night the murder was
committed.
Acknowledgement Dubois said there was
no objection TO the witness seeing the
picture OF the murdered woman at any
time Mr.. Pierce might desire him to do
so. Mr.. Pierce said the name of the
witness whose testimony was new and
important was James Moore and he resid-
ed in the village of Thornton in the
Town OF Johnston.
The court said IL did not seem best to
try the case in piecemeal and Mr.. Pierce
said II his witness was TO come at all he
would be here within q half O
The case was then put aside until other
matters on today's docket were disposed
OF.
The hearing was resumed at II 80
O'Clock and Mr.. Pierce announced to the
court that he had interviewed James
Moore, the witness referred 10 in his
earlier statement 10 the court, and show
ed him the photograph OF Mrs. Cham
bers, and Mr.. Moore failed to identify the
picture as that of the woman he had seen
with another man than Keegan in Scitu-
ate on the night OF the murder.
Mr.. Pierce then stated the grounds for
a new trial which were principally TO the
effect that the verdict Of the jury was
against the evidence and the weight
thereof ana that the presiding judge in
the court below erred in his charge to the
jury and also in the admission OF certain
testimony as well as TO recently discov-
cred and new evidence. The testimony IN
the case, the facts of the finding of the
body OF Emily Chambers in the lonely
COW path in North Scituate, the identifi-
cation of the body, the borrowing OF a re-
volver by Lawrence keegan ana many in
eidents of Importance IN the testimony
were carefully reviewed by Mr.. Pierce.
A great deal of Importance was placed by
the counsel for the petitioner on the ties.
timony of the Taylors, who loaned the re-
volver with which the murder is alleged &c
have been committed and the curiou;
facts in regard to the revolver and cart
ridges brought out at the trial were gone
over.
Mr.. Pierce's attacks on certain weak
points in the States evidence in the case
was considered by the lawyers in attend
ance a mastery one.
The plaintiffs. counsel, in their brief,
1 called the attention of the court to the
following points.
First, that the general rule as declared
in the older cases that new trials will not
be granted on the ground Of newly dis
covered evidence which is merely cumu-
lative, rests upon no substantial princi-
pie of Justice. Second, that, as was re-
marked by the court in Guyot VS.. Pulls,
the early definitions of what constitutes
cumulative evidence are somewhat vague,
and ii is not easy to discover a record OF
the considerations which induced the
rule.
The brief then considers at length the
reasons which seemed TO have caused the
rule to be adopted and the argument
is made that such reasons do not apply In
the case at bar. The third point raised
is that the courts grant new trials on
the ground Of newly discovered evidence
which Is cumulative in proper cases. and
the fourth claim is that the new evil
dence upon which the petitioner asks for
a new trial is not cumulative.
The Connecticut case OF Anderson vs..
the state is deemed OF great value to
Keegan for, according 10 the doctrine ii
laws down, In interpreting the rule In re-
gard to cumulative evidence, evidence OF
distinct facts, though similar TO those
set out upon on the trial and tending to
etablish the same proposition, is not cumu-
lative.
In regard to the new evidence in the
the
new afiidavits filed are consistent with
the alibi claimed at the trial and yet so
independent that were all the former
witnesses mistaken i'm their testimony or
for any reason unreliable, yet the facts
now claimed might be true.
On the point as to how strong the new
evidence should be to establish a new tri-
al IT Is argued that In cares where the
Continued on Page 8.