The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-09-06

The case of Mrs" % Mary Alice
Almont Livingston Fleming, 1ow in the
"Tombs" Of New York city. under the
charge Of having murdered her own
mother, Mrs Bliss, with dish Of poison
ed chow Ter, has increased in interest
from the fact that the sum of $4,000 is
In the hands of the City Chamberlain of
New York, payable to Mrs. Fleming upon
the death Of Mrs. Bliss.
THIS condition of things has brought up
the question whether Mrs. Fleming can
take the money left TO her by her fathers
will, upon the death of her mother, If that
death was caused by herself. The New
York Herald says:
IF Mrs. Fleming shall be convicted or
murder in any degree she cannot re-
ceiye one dollar Of the estate. That Is
the law. and II has been so set forth
by the Court of Appeals. The question
was never raised in this State until the
fall of 1889. and then il was asked whether
a legatee who has murdered his testatOr
can take the property bequeathed TO him
by will.
Francis b. Palmer made VIII by
which he left small legacies to his two
daughters and then gave the rest OF his
estate. on certain conditions, 10 his grand
son. Elmer r.. Palmer. boy Of sixteen.
The boy knew of the provision OF the
will in his favor and also that his grand
father was thinking seriously of reyok-
ing II. To prevent this and TO get pos
session of the property he deliberately
poisoned him. For this crime he was con-
. in
and sent to the State reformatory
THE lower courts decided that the muir
der would not affect the provisions of the
will, and hence the boy was entitled 10
the property bequeathed to him. This
view was also taken by two judges OF the
Court of Appeals, Gray and Danforth. 1t
was based on the ground that Will
can be broken only for the reasons pre-
scribed by statute and among these rea-
sons the Legislature has not included
murder of the testator by a legatee.'
81 should not hesitate sa.d Judge
Gray to assent TO views which conf
mend themselves 20 the conscience. But
the matter does not lie within the CONAN
of conscience. We are bound by the
rigid rules of law which have been pre-
scribed by the legislature
1.-THE majority of the court-five judges
They thought II was a .ase be deter
mined in accordance with equity and COM
mon sense. rather than slavish adher-
ence to rigid rules Of statutory construc-
tion.
eft was the intention OF the lawmakers
that the donees in a will ~hOuld have the
property. But II never could have been
their intention that a donee who muir
dercd the testator to make the VIII opera
tive should have any beneft under IT,
To hold that legal title TO property may
be acquired by murder. says Judge Earle
would he "a reproach to the Jurisprudence
of our State and an offence against pubic
policy
THE decision of the court was that the
bow was entitled TO nothing under the
will, and that the property must go 10 the
two daughters of the testaor.
"The English courts held in the case
of Mrs. Maybrick. convicted Of having
killed her husband by mixing poison in
his medicine. that a wife who has MUIR
dered her husband is not entitled TO the
insurance money on his life.
"If Mrs Fleming should be convicted
of having murdered her mother II IL
likely that the analogy between murder
ing a testator and numbering one hold
ing life interest in an estate which
reverts TO the murderer Will be SHOWN. II
is not improbable that in this event that
norton of the estate Of Mrs. Fleming
father woulG> revert TO his heirs Just as
though he had died intestate."
Both the cases Of Mrs. Bliss and OF
Mr. Francis d. Palmer, especially the
latter. recall that Of the venerable Chan
cellor Wythe. of Virginia, who was known
to have made a will in favor OF nephew
and that nephew. in order to enjoy the
bcnefaction Of his old uncle-who was still
hale and hearty-and sitting on the
bench at Si-poisoned him. Although the
ungrateful and heartless nephew succeed
ed only too well in his murderous DE-
sign, the old Chancellor lived long enough
to change his will and cut his murderer
off