Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

Pro- The defendant should not receive the inheritance from the will. 1) On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his will and testament, he left small legacies to his two daughters and left the rest to his grandson Elmer E. Palmer. (1.1.1) 2) Elmer who was sixteen at the time was well aware of what was in the will and was very impatient to receive it. (1.1.3-4) 3) When Francis started to show his intention to change the provisions made in the will, Elmer poisoned Francis. (1.1.4) 4) Now Elmer wants to claim the possessions left to him from Francis. (1.1.5) 5) Statutes that regulate the effect of a will and the distribution of property cannot be adjusted and it cannot give the property to a murderer. (2.2.1) 6) The purpose of those statutes are to permit the testator to give whatever belongings they leave behind, as well as allowing the courts to consider who to leave them to. (2.3.1) 7) A will is made to leave certain belongings to whomever the testator issued them to. (2.3.2) 8) The will was not intended to leave things to those who cause the testators death. (2.3.3) 9) If the statutes left out an important sentence or word then it would be purposely done, and vice versa. (2.3.4) 10) Lawmakers don"t always perfectly express what they are trying to say, they either write too much or too little so that the judges can read in-between the lines to find the implicit meaning. (2.3.5) 11) Sometimes, a case is purposely vague because the meaning is hidden within and this allows the judge to have reasoning to find a solution (2.4.4) 12) The reason the law is constructed like that is because you cannot classify a term for every case there would be too many terms and it wouldn"t leave room for everyone but only a specific type of situation. (2.4.5) 13) When fully understanding the right judgment to determine the fairness of the statute, one would guess that a lawyer should forsee the future clause in this case. (3.4.6) 14) If you couldn"t forsee the future events then how could a reasonable man? (3.4.7) 15) If a negative occurrence arises from not being too specific then a judge has the right to conclude that the unsuspecting results could not be foreseen by parliament, and thus they have the power to propose the clause based on fairness, although if a situation where the unreasonable man is present the clause doesn"t help him because it isn"t fair to help him get out of trouble that he put himself in. (3.4.14) 16) The statutes were applied in NY Mutual Life insurance company V Armstrong (117 U.S. 591) (4.7.4) 18) The courts held that a person who obtained a life policy for someone else and would receive payments upon that death, but then killed that person to receive the money would not receive it. (4.7.5) 19) Justice Field wrote that without looking at the proof of Hunter"s motives in obtaining the policy, he gave up his rights when he murdered the person insured. (4.7.6) 20) It would be like gaining money for intentionally committing arson. (4.7.8) 21) Under the civil law one cannot inherit property from a will from the sponsor they murdered. (5.10.1) 22) The defendant was not certain that he was going to be the official heir. (5.11.2) 23) The defendant could have died before the benefactor and he could have also lost his right to the inheritance. (5.11.3) 24) The defendant made himself an heir by committing the murder with hopes of receiving the benefactor"s property after committing this crime. (5.11.4) 25) He intentionally plotted to become an heir to receive a reward for his crime. (5.11.5) 26) The defendant received just punishment for his crime. (5.12.1) 27) The punishment doesn"t take anything from him, but it doesn"t reward him for his crime. (5.12.2) 28) The facts in these case provide the plaintiffs reprieve (6.14.1) 29) What the plaintiff left out of the will was concluded by the law (6.14.2) 30) The court will not issue a new trial (6.14.3) 31) The court has tried this case twice and has ended up with the same results. (6.14.4) 32) Therefore the defendant may not use the property that was left for him, and the will, will be null and void on the account of what was left for the defendant for the crime he committed against the benefactor. (6.15.2)