Task of Interpreting the Law

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22444, 13 June 1936, Page 17 (Supplement)

Task of Interpreting the Law

Murder Committed for Profit

tyHO BENEFITS UNDER A VICTIM'S WILL?

By Professor R. M. ALGIE Specially written for the New Zealand Herald

is a trite old saying to the effect that it takes all sorts to make a world. This is probably true enough, and most of us are prepared to accept it as axiomatic and leave it at that. Personally, I like to examine now and then the motives and acts of some of those who go to make up the "infinite variety" of our Vuman family. It is in such moments that the law reports are helpful and amusing. Within the pages of these serious-* looking volumes are preserved the records of hopes and disappointments, of deeids and misdeeds, representing every possible type of human activity. Here, too, are laid bare in stark reality, the diverse motives by which the actions of men have been prompted and controlled. Few people would ever imagine the wide range of subjects with which our Judges are called upon to grapple. From insurance to divorce, from shipping to native land, from murder to breach of promise of marriage—any and every problem that can confront the average citizen can also come before a single judge for solution.

But with a murder as ono of the salient facts, some further consideration must be given to this question. This particular wife might have been very heavily indebted to X, and she might have felt, or been made to believe, that the only way out of her difficulty was to murder her husband and thus put some money into the pockets of X. Emphatic Opinions

Two famous Judges, Lord Justice Fry and Lord JEsher, expressed very emphatic opinions upon this question. They laid it down that a murderer could not derive any direct benefit from the estate of his victim. It followed from this that the wife, having murdered her husband, could not herself claim the insurance policy in question, and, if she herself could not claim it, then the third person, X, to whom she had assigned her rights, would be in no better position. It is useless, therefore, for us to hope to pay our debts by murdering those who have been good enough to provide for us by means of insurances upon their own lives. The case of Crippen will occur to the minds of many. It will be remembered that this accomplished criminal murdered his wife and then sought to escape to America. His arrest was made possible by means of wireless telegraphy —the first great criminal case in which this most important invention was so employed. The year was about 1910! Crippen's wife was insured, and no doubt Crippen hoped to extract the sheckles from .the insurance company concerned. But the law was too quick and too certain for him, and he suffered the common fate of murderers. It happened, however, that Crippen had appointed an interesting young lady as his sole executrix. Could she, then, claim as Crippen's executrix, the rights and benefits which Crippen himself had been so effectively deprived of enjoying in specie? Cannot Expedite Matters

Unusual Problem Let us seek to entertain you for a moment or two by presenting one type of problem that is happily unusual in our law Courts and yet one which is full of human interest. A is a very wealthy person and has made - a will in favour of B, but B is terribly impatient and cannot possibly wait for A to dio in the ordinary effluxion of time. So he murders A. Can he, B, under these circumstances, claim to inherit A's fortune?, In other words, can a murderer acquire a benefit under the will of his victim? Naturally, it will be said at once that the question is entirely a silly one; but people who do not like being rude will Bay that it is "academic" or "purely theoretical." It would be pointed out by such people that the murderer would be executed, and that, in consequence, his interest in his victim's will would be unsubstantial and visionary. But do we not jump to conclusions? Is every murderer executed? Some are not even discovered. Others are acquitted. Several are, from time to time, pardoned by the Crown. A few perhaps have their sentences commuted to imprisonment for life. Chances of Escape

"No, decidedly no," said that eminent Judge, Sir Samuel Evans. "The human mind revolts at the very idea that any such doctrine could be possible in our system of jurisprudence.'' This view clearly discourages the self-sacrificing murderer. If he happens to know that someone has provided handsomely for him by will, he cannot expedite matters by murdering his would-be benefactor. He may say to himself: "I realise that it cannot do me any good personally; but I do not live for myself alone; my thoughts are wholly for the good of others. Therefore, I will murder my benefactor, and then, when I have paid the penalty for my wrongdoing, my executor and trustee will have a splendid fortune to distribute among my/needv and patient relatives."

If, then, the murderer has so many chances of escaping death as are here suggested, we are surely justified in asking ourselves the question, can a murderer derive any profit through his crime? Let us put upon the Judges the whole burden of. solving this problem, and let us see how they have dealt with this matter When it has come before them.

These are wonderful- sentiments, but they are very unsound from a legal point of view. This very sane and calculating murderer would obtain no rights at all as the result of his ghoulish efforts, and his executor and trustee would likewise receive no portion of the estate of the victim. The moral, therefore, is "Do not commit crimes for the benefit of others." When No Will Is Left A second type of case presents itself for examination. A is, again, an exceedingly wealthy man who has repeatedly boasted that he would never enrich the lawyers by making a will. He feels so strongly upon the point that he would not even allow the Public Trustee to do it for him. He stoutly insists upon dying intestate. The only members of his family are his wife and his son. Both wife and son have made wills of their own, the wife

Away back in 1892, a most interesting case was argued before the Courts in England. A husband had taken out an insurance policy upon his own life, but in favour of his wife. The wife murdered her husband,,and was duly sentenced to death; but this sentence was commuted to one of imprisonment for life. It happened that, some time previously, the wife had assigned to one X the whole of her interest in this particular insurance. On these facts an interesting question arises. Who receives the insurance money? If there had been no question of murder or manslaughter, the proceeds of the policy would have gone to X.

leaving all her property to the University, the son leaving liis to an orphanage. Now, if the father, A, were to die by natural means, then, after debts and duties had been paid, onethird of the balance of his estate would go to the wife and the remainder would pass to the son. This is due to the clear and imperative provisions of an Act of Parliament. Let us suppose, however, that this unworthy son murders his father. We have already seen that, under such circumstances, neither the son himself nor his executors and trustees could obtain any benefits under the will of the father. But the father did not leave a will; ho died, as we say, intestate. What is the position under these conditions? Sound on One Condition What would that orphanage think about the matter? Could not its Board of Trustees argue somewhat as follows? A died intestate leaving a distributable estate of, say, £90,000. By a rulo of statute law, bis son became entitled at once to £OO,OOO. The son is now dead, but his will gives Jill his property to us; therefore, we can properly claim immediate payment of the £60,000. This argument is sound on one condition only, and that is that a murderer can obtain a benefit under the intestacy of his victim. In a case decided in England as late as 19M1, it was stated by counsel that this particular question had never before been adjudicated upon in an English Court, and, in fact, we have to depend for our present opinion upon a case argued as late as the year 1934. It was then definitely laid down that a murderer cannot take any benefit from his victim's will or even under his victim's intestacy. It follows, therefore, that in the imaginary case we have been examining the son would acquire no part whatever of the estate of his murdered father, and, indeed, the whole £90,000 would go to the widow, with resulting high hopes for the University. An Important Principle In this intestacy problem which we have just solved to our own entire satisfaction, we have stumbled quite unintentionally upon a most important principle of our administration of justice. It was stated as being a rule of law that if a man died intestate leaving surviving him his widow and an only son, then that son would have a statutory right to receive two-thirds of the final balance of his father's estate. Yet we have just seen that, if that son is found to have murdered his father, the Courts -will pass over this clear statutory rule and will declare that the son acquired no benefits at all from the intestacy of his father. Can our Courts thus override or ignore a definite provision of an Act of Parliament ? As a general rule, they cannot do so. But there is, in our administration of justice, a mysterious, indefinite, and rather unruly thing called "public policy." It sometimes happens that some principle of public policy comes into direct conflict with an express rule of statute law. When this happens, it is possiblo—on very special grounds—for a Judge to declare that the principle of public policy is superior to the statutory rule, and to give his decision accordingly. Part of the Public Policy

This is exactly what happened in the interesting case decided in 1934. It is said to be pnrt of the public policy of our State that a wrongdoer should not be permitted to profit by his wrong. The son, in our problem, was clearly a wrongdoer; as such, he could have had no benefits under his father's will; and, for an exactly similar reason, namely, public policy, ho could not be permitted to acquire any benefits under his father's intestacy —although there existed a statutory provision under which he might otherwise have benefited.

One final point must now be noticed. Does our rule apply equally to murderers who are sane and to those who are insane? Suppose, again, that A is very wealthy; that he has only two relatives, namely, his two sons; and that these two sons will inherit between them the whole of their father's estate at his death. The first son has made a will giving everything to an orphanage, while the second son has, in his will, given everything to the University. Wo will imagine that these two sons, acting together, murdered their father, and we will suopose that a jury found the first son "Guilty" and the second, "Guilty, but insane." Case of the Insane It would appear to be good law that the first son can acquire nothing at all under his father's will or upon his intestacy; the orphanage, therefore, goes out of the picture altogether. But there is judicial authority for the proposition that the position is not the same in the case of the second son.

The rule of public policy directed against murderers is limited to sane murderers and has no application whatever to insane murderers. Therefore, if the second son was sane when he made his will in favour of the University, but insane when ho participated in the killing of his father, the University authorities, at all events, will not suffer but will receive the full benefits conferred by the will 6f this second son. That, then, is the whole story in outline. A sane murderer cannot derive any benefits under the will, or upon the intestacy, of his victim; his executors and trustees and even his assignees appear to be in no better position; but insane murderers are not affected by these important rules of public policy.

weather turned so bad that ho was glad to lie in the scuppers, and for seven hours, while Burgess toiled on, cared not whether he lived or died. Burgess was forced to surrender three or four miles short of the French coast, but promised to try again to-morrow. " Don't," Mr. Bennison pleaded. " Channel swimming may bo your hobby, but to me it is a grossly overrated pastime." Boxer in Prison On a visit to Now York ho met huge Dick Butler, one of tho first lieutenants of Tammany and a pillar of the boxing ring, who had helped Harry Thaw, murderer of Stanford White, to escape from an asylum. " There is one of the best middleweights I have seen knocking around, waiting in the Tombs to bo sent to Sing Sing," Dick told him. " Maybe, if you like him, it could bo arranged." So he took Mr. Bennison along to the prison with a request that ho might be shown round. " Come right along with me," said tho chief warder, " but no Dick Butler —he stops outside." " Tam," Butler pleaded, " there ain't going to bo any kidnapping this time. But, as you say, perhaps L had better stop outside. There would be hell if some of the boys saw me; they'd all be hollering for me to try to get them out." Mr. Bennison asked a hard-bitten journalist of the old brigade: " Do you think that you could do a nice little paragraph about a real tennis, match?"' " I am your man," was the reply. This is what he deposited on .the subeditor's table: " Tennis is an old game. It was played by no less a personage than the late lamented Cardinal Wolsey. This match took place at . Scores "Giants on Parade," by B. Bennison. (Rich and Cowan.)