New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-15
Ithaca. n. Y. Feb. 2S. 1870.
HE OBJECTS TO MR.. GODKINS DECISION
A LAWYER THINKS MRS. MARY ALICE AIMoNr
FLEMING ENTITLED To MER INHERITANcE

FLEMING ENTITLED TO HER INHERITANCE.
To The Editor OF The Tribune
Sir: Referee Lawrence Golkir In Il case In the
Supreme Court. has just decided that Mrs Mary
Alice Fremont Fleming shall not receive her sAarc
OF her grandfathers estate to which She became
titled on the death OF her mother. until she has
established her innocence of the charge murder
ing her mother Mrs. Bss. who died under sus-
pcious circumstances about six months since. The
decision mentioned made In an action In the
Supreme Court by the remote heirs OF Mrs Bliss to
from Mrs. Fleming the OF $4,000 due her
from the estate OF her father Robert Swift Liv-
ingston, the death Of her mother.
II the legal principle which this was de-
cided is sound. its consequences when carried out
TO their fullest extent. would be most disastrous
Mrs. Fleming H. at present In prison. under lndct-
ment charging her with the murder Of her mother
by poison. She has not been tried. but Is simply
kept imprisoned awaiting trial Not having been
convicted she is entitled to the benefit Of the time
honored presumption Of universal application that
every person Is presumed to be innocent of a crime
until proven guilty.
No legal principle has been more generally sane
toned by the courts Of all enlightened communities
than this. and It is not much to assert that #
has never before been questioned b. any judicial
authority entitled to weight.
But Referee GOdkn's decision is the reverao NJ
the law stated for he holds that Mrs Fleming
having been charged with the crime Of murder
must prove her innocence before she can come into
possession Of her Inheritance. to which 1t Is CON
coded she Is absolutely entitled.
/ The referees decision Is based on the case Of
Riggs VS.. Palmer. decided in the Court OF Appeals
In october, 1ss?
In that case II appeared that Elmer T.. Palmer
at the time sixteen years OF age had been made
the residuary legatee In the Will Of his grand
father Francis b. Palmer. and I'm order to obtain
speedy possession OF his property poisoned his
grandfather. Elmer subsequently convicted
OF murder in the second degree. and sentenced 10
the Reformatory at Elmira.
Mrs. Riggs and Mrs Preston daughters and
heirs -at-law OF the grandfather. brought suit TO
set aside that provision OF the grandfather's Will
devsing any part Of the property 10 Elmer Palmer
claiming he ought not to benefit By his own wrong
and obtain an inheritance through the instrument
tally OF the murder OF his testator.
The Court Of Appeals sustained the contention OF
Mrs. Riggs and Mrs Preston. and decided that II
never could have been the intention OF the law
makers that a donee who murdered the testator
TO make the Will operative should have any beneht
under It," and that mo shall be permitted to
profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage OF
his own wrong or to found any claim upon his
own iniquty TO acquire property by his own
crime"
a similar result reached In the Armstrong
IN the United States Supreme Court In 1886
where II said that II would be reproach to
the jurisprudence OF the country Ut one cOuld
cover insurance money payable on the death OF IA
party whose life he had feoniousiy taken. As well
might he recover insurance money on "A building
that he had wlfuly fired"
In that case. Armstrong, to whom the policy
payable had been tried FOR the murder and
fcted. This decision OF Riggs vs. Palmer Is said to
have frequently uesiioncd By legal writer's of
other States but 1t stands to-day unchaenged
the law Of this state.
In some OF the earlier cases In the Court OF APP
peais the admission OF evidence that a person had
been arrested or indicted for crime was sustained
to prove his character and impair his credit az a
witness and general reputation. But In the later
decisions a more reasonable rule has been adopted,
and II Is now the law that mere charges or accuse
| lions or even indictments. may not be so inquired
into since they are consistent with innocence, and
may exist without moral deliQuency, and that the
| fact of an Indictment could not produce such re-
suit; since It was merely accusation. and inno-
cence was presumed. Also that 1T does not prove
| that witness has been guilty OF a crime to prove
| that ne has been arrested upon the charge OF
| crime that he has been indicted for acrme.
But the law as stated does not epply TO Mrs
Jennings case. She has not been convicted and
until she has been found guilty. 10 entitled to the