The grounds for the defence are the same as on the previous occasion, namely, the provocation given by the father, and the doubt as to the son's paternity.
There were, in fact, two questions before the court.

First, whether the crime committed was murder or manslaughter; and, if it was murder, whether the murderer was or was not the son of the murdered man.

Instead, however, of facing either of these questions of fact, the court seems to enter upon abstract considerations, which to our notions are quite irrelevant.

The degree to which paternal corrections can be carried without abuse, and the problem whether a man who kills a person, whom he believes and has reason to believe to be his father, but who is not so in fact, is guilty or not of the sin of parricide, seem rather questions for clerical casuistry than considerations which bear upon facts.

The final conclusion drawn from these various reflections is, that the court confirms the judgment of the Perugian tribunal, in every respect.
The rejection of the appeal is not communicated for two months more, that is, not till the 22nd of April, to the prisoner, who at once appeals again against the execution of the verdict to the Upper Court of the Supreme Tribunal.