The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1904-01-29

First, that the verdict is against the
law; second, that the verdict Is against
the evidence and weight thereof; third,
that the presiding justice erred in exclud-
ing certain evidence offered by this de-
fendant: fourth. that the presiding JUS
tice erred in his instructions to the jury;
nth, that the presiding justice erred In
refusing TO instruct the jury as requested
by the defendant: sixth, that material
evidence has been newly discovered which
could not have been procured by due and
reasonable diligence on the part OF this
defendant foy use at the first trial.
Quigley was a suitor for the hand OF the
girl that Camac married.
In opening defendants case to the jury
counsel in support or the claim that
ouigley was insane offered to show that
the father OF the defendant, John Quigley
by name, was confirmed drunkard In
addition to being a peculiar man In other
respects: that the said John Quigley was
known by his friends as Crazy Quigiey,"
aud that there were certain evidences OF
insanity I'm general in the father; that
tendency or predlspostion under the
laws OF nature and heredity was trans
mitted by the father to the son. Charles
Quigley: that this defendant himself wts
known by the police OF Canton, Mass. as
"Crazy Quigley" and that he was also a
confirmed alcoholic the effects Of which
had tendency to mental degeneraoy.
The defendant had. IL is claimed. suf-
fered from former attacks or delirium
tremens In Pennsylvania and Rhode. ISL
and, and each one OF these attacks had
a tendency destructive OF the defend
ants brain. The defendant, it is as
serted, had been indulging excessively in
intoxicating liquors for n protracted
period. and had been acting queerly for
several days before oct. ?, when ne re-
ceived a letter from the mother OF a
young woman with whom he had kept
company for a long time. informing him
that the young woman had married
Carmac. All these things, 10 is claimed,
brought about insanity or an attack OF
delirium tremens and this was the men
tai condition OF defendant at the time
OF the shooting.
Counsel for the defendant also claim
that the trial justice wrongfully excluded
evidence offered TO show that this de-
PENDANT by Inheritance from his father
OF predispOsitiOn 20 insanity I'm any
form, and in particular 20 predisposi-
ton 70 insanity I'm the form OF delirium
trements. The interesting point. there
fore. Is whether there can be given 10 a
Jury testimony that the parent OF one al
legged 20 have committed a crime during
an attack OF delirium tremens was also
subject 10 such attacks and therefore not
a sane person. and that such species OF
insanity Is transmissble from parent 20
child. Again. the attorney general at
the trial argued and was supported by
the court that no evidence OF the defend
ants mental condition at other times
than at the time Of the shooting unless
the defence was insanity generally and
not simply delirium tremcns.
Mr.. Cooney OF counsel for the defend
ant argued that everything relating TO
the prisoners physical and mental his
tory was competent under the authOri-
ties. In their brief. counsel for the de-
PENDANT attack the testimony OF George
II. Simmons. NJ. d, very sharply. Dr.
Simmons was one OF the witnesses OF the
state. and claimed that Quigley was In
normal condition about the tims OF his