SEQUEL TO A MURDER.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1130, 18 May 1911, Page 5

SEQUEL TO A MURDER.

« .THE CASH CASE. CAN THE MURDERER INHERIT? THE JUDGE SAYS "NO." "Shall a murderer inherit his victim'l property?" was tho question answered by Mr. Ju.sHcn Chapman in a judgment which lip delivered yesterday. His answci was in tho negative. Tho action was brought by the Publio Trustee, as administrator of tho estate of Charlotte Sarah Cash, late of Heleosville, Auckland, married woman, and as representing her noxt-of-kin (other than tho defendant), against Alfred Albert Cash, a life prisoner in (ho Auckland Gaol. Mr. .1. \V". Macdonald represented tho Public Trustee, and Mr. I). M. Fiudlay the defendant Cash. The facts of the case, were that Charlotte Sarah Cash had been murdered by her husband at Holensville on Christmas Day, 1910. Cash had been sentenced to death, but that sentence had snlraquently • been commuted to ono of imprisonment for life, and Cash was now in Auckland Gaol. Mrs. Cash had died intestate, and tho administration of her estate had been , granted to Iho Public Trustee. Sho had left no issue, and under ordinary circumstances her estate would have gone to her husband. The question which tho Court was nsknd to <!eci<it> was whether tho law would allow any benefit to accrue to a criminal by his oirn act. His Honour, in his judgment, said that Mr. Findlay claimed that the right to receive the estate devolved on defendant by the Administration Act, and that nothing could defeat that right. That seemed to his Honour to be contrary to tho authorities. It was held that it was contrary to public policy that a man who murdered a near relative should Ixj allowed.to make a direct profit by so doing. Whether that doctrine was or was not: dependent on a conviction being obtained, was immaterial, but it. would bo blrmigr if committing such u. crmu in a country where u man could escapo punishment for such an act made any difference. Tho Fauntlcroy, Maybrick, and Crippen cases, which hau been referred to at the hearing as throwing light: upon the matter, were reviewed by his Honour. In regard to Iho latter, he said that 11. H. Crippen was, on October 22, 1910, found guilty of having murdered his wife. He had by his will constituted a woman named Lo Neve his executrix and sole legatee. . Having proved Crippen's will, she applied . for administration to the estate of . Mrs. Crippen. There was a prior question as to whether the record of the conviction of Crippen proved that ho had in fact murdered his wife. The President of tho Court decided that it was at least prima. fr.cio evidence of that fact, and no doubt this would be accepted in the future ns deciding a question which fortunately rarely arose, thoughMn Yates y. KyffinTaylor and Wnrk, the County Palatino Court had decided the contrary.. At any rate his Honour was prepared to accept and act on this decision on tho authority of the learned president. "Tho fact nf this murder of Mrs. Crip* pen being proved," continued his Honour, "this case becomes an authority if any wero wanted for the general proposition. It is true that the question of tho right to the property was not finally decided in the probate divlsiou, but tho decision would have been meaningless if tho learned President had thought that lie Nevo had a right to recover it. If it: had pnssed to Crippeu, sho alone would have been interested. Mr. Findlay referred to the words of the Act as passing to and vesting in a husband his wife's estate. . Thnt, however, was the real point decided in connection with Florenco Mnybrick's claim under tho contract made by her husband for her benefit. He further argued that tho matter was in some sense discretionary, especially as in this case the murder wau committed from some other motive than fhat of acquiring p'op'W'ljr. \t is, however, notorious that that was so in tho Mnybrick ense, and possibly in tho Crippen case. Whcro tho Court refuses ;to act on tho ground that, to do so is against public policy, it does so without reference 'to the facts of the particular case. That is mndo clear by the passage I have cited from Cleaver y. tho Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association.- In no sense can such a Question give rise to a matter ot discretion. "With respect to the claim of the assignecs, I am sorry I cannot givo effect to it, as it is based upon a bona Mβ assignment for value of tho fund, they being the solicitors employed by Cash to defend him. They cannot, however, have a better claim than Cash had. It is <t question of property, end no property passed to Cash by his wife's death, go that there was nothing to assign."