Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will

Judge Gray (Dissenting opinion).... 1.) Complete freedom of testamentary disposition of one's property has not been an universal rule but in the Roman law. 2.) To the statutory restraints that will impose upon the final arrangement or final act towards one's property by will, should follow the validity and performance of the will. 3.) The capacity and power of the individual that will dispose of his or her property after death, should be exercised according to what the will states and the legislature can't assume that they will have control and has to understand what is said in the will. 4.) The appellant's argument is that the rules that the legislature are following are not the rules of the civil law or laws of the government that the heir is excluded from benefits under the testament, if he was convicted of murder. 5.) The courts do not have the power to enforce to improve the justice system. 6.) The words of the statute are: "No will in writing, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked or altered otherwise". Non-Controversial: 2,4,6 Controversial: Con: Our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. Should we allow the government to rewrite a will that is meant to follow one's wishes before they pass away? An example is the case of Owens v. Owens, the wife was able to receive her deceased husband's estate and she help commit a criminal act by helping to kill her husband in order to get the estate. Our government allowed her to receive her deceased husbands estate. Pros rebuttal: While you are correct with stating that our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. But what would be the true wishes of Palmer if he was alive and he found out his grandson was plotting his murder. Is"t it safe to assume that, that knowledge would make him rewrite his will. If he were already thinking about changing the will what is to say that this would not make him change it. I believe he would have because any reasonable person would. So is it hard to assume that the court would assume the same thing. While you are correct that in Owens V. Owens the wife received her dead husbands estate but if the court granted a new trial like it stated in the reading should have happened there is no saying what might have been. Con's Rebuttal: In the appellate argument the decision is not based on the crime that Elmer Palmer committed but whether he should receive his grandfather's estate. The only person that was able to revoke or change the will was the grandfather and the court should not take it upon themselves to decide on who gets the property of a dead man. He created a will for a reason and who should get his estate. The court's decision to give Mr. Palmer's estate between his daughter which was Elmer's mother and his widow. But what if Elmer's mother forgive him for his actions and decide to give some of his grandfather's property to him. Does that make it right? Answer to Cons Question#2: Pros Answers: If Palmer was still alive when Elmer murdered someone else what is to say that Elmer would still be in the will. In premise 4 of my argument you will see that the reason that Elmer murdered his grandfather was because his grandfather was already thinking about removing him from the will. This has nothing to do with the law because if Palmer was alive and Elmer murdered someone there is a very good chance that would be the final straw that would make the grandfather remove him from the will. If that happened then this case would be irrelevant because he would not be in the will. Cons Rebuttal: This is an assumption you are regarding if Palmer was alive from the attack, he would remove his grandson from his will because of what Elmer did. We can't assume that his grandfather would change his mind but we also can't assume he wouldn't either. But the courts should not be the one to decide to change a dead man's will and alter the wishes of a dead man's will.