Telegram-herald., 1889-11-17
OFFICIAL PAPER OR The CITY.
GRAND RAPIDS. SUNDAY. yov. II.


10 - generally understood that the
body OF our lAw 5 made up Of the Eng
lisa common .aw and statute law, the
latter slpersed.ng the former whenever
thsy clash. 10 has now been judlciaAy
determined that there IS still another
element Whieh does not always come 70
tne surface and which may even super
sede eltner. or both. OF the other ele-
ments-a goodiy mo dicum Of common
sense. The View York Court Of Appeals
has made the reml rkable discovery.
. one Frances B. Palmer had made a
WI, gigng small legacies 70 his two
daugh ters and leaving the rest Of ms
property, on certain conditions, to his
grandson. Elmer z. Palmer, a boy of
sixteen. Elmer knew the provisions OF
ths sal. and also that his grandfather
wa-s thinking seriously OF revoking IT,
To prevent this and To get the property
he poisoned his grandfather with
strychnlns. Hs was convicted Of mur-
der 70 ths second degree and was sent
. the state RefOmAtory. The lower
courts, very properly, we're guided by
the letter of the statutes, and decided
that the murder could not affect the
provisions of the VIII, and hence that
TIE boy was entitled % the property
bequeathed % him. The same view
vas taken by two judges Of the Court
OK Appeals, Gray aad Danforth. II
wts based on tas ground that = NIL can
b broken only for the reasons pre-
scrbed by statute, and among these
reasons ths Legislature has not lnclud-
Al murder of the testatOr by
q legateo. Judge Gray, in stating his
position said. g ( should not hesitate
r. assent % views which commend
themselves % the conscience. But the
matter does not lie within the domain
Of conscience. We are bound by the
rg.d rules Of 'aw which have been es-
tai. she'd by Che legislature" The ma
I0rty Of the court, however. consider
mg that The lettCr ki,leth, bat the
spirit y.veth Ifs." cut loose from the
letter Of tlc law and held that the case
should be- determined IN accordance
with equ.ty a0t common sense rather
than sIlvlsh adherence tor Eid rules Of
statutory construction. While it was
the intention 0ftne lawmakers that the
donees In \ will should have the prop
erty. stll % never could have been their
intention that a d0nee who murdered
the testat0r to make tss VII operative
should have any benefit under 10. To
hold that the legstee could acquire th .
legsi tit'e to property under VII by
Deliberate murder, says Judge Earl.
would be a rcproach 20 the iurspru-
deuce of our state, and an ofsnse
against public policy" The court,
therefore. decided that the grandson
was entitled 70 nothing under the will
A different conclusion would have been
A. encouragement - crime.
A case involving SIM ar principle
"a row penjing before judge Atgsld. in
Cbicago. I'M Which Msgg,e eSchreincr. who
poured Kerosene OH on her husband
June 25. 1883. and then set FIRE % It,
burning h'm fatally. IS suing the high
court of the Catholic Order Of Forest
srs. f1r use 0f John @. King. her sttor-
nsv. for 5000. interest and principal.
on a death benefit Of 5000. vh.ch she
claims a. Beneficiary Of the dead mans
estate. The -ase came 40 0u 4 notion
e. overruie demurrer fled by the s0-
cietv's lawyer, who claims that as the
woman murdered her husband, and IS
nosv serving q term n ten years 70 the
penitantsry tbs death benefit can not
b. claimed 5y her. It would seem that
tls same principle II common sense
that was recog1 red in the Palmer case
would he point in th.s enc.