palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

The power and construction of a will should be respected in every sense. The law is pretty much clear on the concept of a will construction. It is a contact, it is the last document that is on paper and therefore can be clearly interpreted, that the will should indeed be important and appreciated by the parties involved. The will does dictate that part of the estate to be awarded to defendant Palmer, but only when the testator is deceased of natural causes and not by any donee's felonious actions that intervened with testator's future possible provisions/revisions to the will. Has the testator been aware of the defendant's intentions of murder, it is reasonable to foresee that Francis B. Palmer would include additional provisions to the will denying the defendant his right to the estate portion. And once it can be foreseen by a reasonable man, it must be taken into account that no right shall be invested t change a will into a person who is not the writer of it. It is not becomes a contradiction to the concept of a will that someone else other than the original testator played a part in drafting of a will. In this case, the defendant Palmer had played a part in changing the will from its originality to benefit his own needs, selfish needs. Even though the last revision of the will was written by Francis B. Palmer before his untimely death, it stated that his grandson Palmer was now entitled to his portion of the will, does not mean that he is indeed entitled to the inheritance on a fact that he was the one causing the death and preventing the grandfather from making any more revisions. The writing of a will is no one's business other that the writer himself. He might have had more provisions to add to the will and perhaps give the defendant a larger portion of his estate and if the defendant had knowledge of future provisions that can turn in his favor, would he murder his grandfather then and not wait for a bigger cut of the inheritance? It is unlikely that that would have taken place. He would be more than glad for the will to come into an effect and reward Palmer with a bigger portion of the will than originally promised. I agree that the writer of a will should entrust that special person to respect the wishes in the will but the Court is not adjusting it, it is preserving it on the basis of fraud which occurred by the defendant. (E.g. We can relate this issue to the cases of insurance fraud, where the collection of money upon someone's death was a result of one committing the fraud, either by murder of the life insurance holder or a conspiracy between the two.) The preservation that should be secured by the Court is indeed the only thing that should happen in this case. The Court does not have te right to have any changes, brought into a will but simply to secure its standing in the eyes of the law and respect the wishes of a testator. (e.g. In these cases, the Court must take action into its hands and reflect back on uncoscionability. How was the contract carried out into reality, into action? Was the contract carried out unreasonably, did the contract benefit on party more than the other and was that the intention? No, once a contract or an agreement does not stand on reason and make no sense and in a way defeats the purpose of a construction of such, it must. Therefore, become void and/or annulled).