Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

Presiding Earl, J 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. (2.3.1) 8) The will was not intended to leave things to those who cause the testators death. (2.3.3) 9) Right before the defendant murdered his benefactor, it wasn"t certain that he was going to be the official heir. (5.11.2) 10) The defendant could have died before the benefactor and he could have also lost his right to the inheritance. (5.11.3) 11) The defendant made himself an heir by committing the murder with hopes of receiving the benefactor property after committing this crime. (5.11.4) 12) He intentionally plotted to become an heir to receive a reward for his crime. (5.11.5) 13) He does not have a right to receive a title as heir for his crime. (5.11.7) 14) The defendant received just punishment for his crime. (5.12.1) 15) The punishment doesn"t take anything from him, but it doesn"t reward him for his crime. (5.12.2) 16) The facts in these case provide the plaintiffs reprieve (6.14.1) 17)What the plaintiff left out of the will was concluded by the law (6.14.2) 18) The court will not issue a new trial (6.14.3) 19) The court has tried this case twice and has ended up with the same results. (6.14.4) 20) Therefore this will be the final ruling (6.14.5) 21) 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) Noncontroversial- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11 Controversial- 1) Should the grandson receive the money from the will after intentionally murdering the benefactor for the money? 2) Should the government have the right to rewrite the will, or impose their own version of the will based on these special circumstances. 1) The grandson committed a crime and was convicted for it, and somehow thinks that he should be rewarded for the crime he committed by receiving funds from the will. The grandson knew that he was in the will and because of his greed he took matters into his own hands and took a life of a family member so that he could reap the benefits sooner than later. Mr Palmer was enjoying his life, he was probably towards his end of his life but we don"t know and we will never know because he was robbed of dying from natural causes. He deserved to die when his time was up and not to be killed because of money, land and property. The grandson is selfish to think that he could take his grandfather"s life and then fight to get the money, if a person burns down a house and says that it burned from natural causes, after they get found out should they still have a right to get the insurance money? (4.1.8.) 2)The Courts have the right to legally bind or alter a will at their discretion. The Testator has died and now the courts are the only ones left to translate the will and make alterations if the clauses were tampered with. The implication in any will is that "when I die, I will leave whomever and whatever of the persons choosing" not "if you kill me you get this, that and a third", if this was so then there are plenty of people who would go on a killing spree to receive their inheritance. The law also states that it doesn"t reward anyone for committing a crime. The clause is tampered with because of the implication to the rule, and the courts protect the deceased testators right by not rewarding the person who caused his death in the first place.