Penn State Law Review Volume 24 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1919 edition. Excerpt: ...homicide. There was no objective motive for the indulgence, and no act with a view to the effectuation of any particular thing. ' What is the object of treating a killing of the sort which wc are considering as a malicious homicide rather than as manslaughter? The only excuse would be, to warn against intoxication, by putting a heavier penalty than would be imposed, were it treated only as manslaughter. But, the possible penalty for the milder offense is surely severe enough when the culprit his simply indulged his appetite for liquor over much, with the wholly unintended consequence of a death. In dissenting from the result reached by the learned court below, we must concede that he had ample ground, in the dicta of judges, for the judgment given. Reversed. STATEMENT OF FACTS. X, by will, devised his land to William Thorpe, whom he had brought up as a son, though not related to him. The words were: "To William-Thorpe I give what he would take were he my only son. Should he have no issue at the time of his death, l give it to such persons as would then be my heirs." William Thorpe has died childless, but devised the land to his brother. William Allison is the person who would be heir to X, and he has taken possession. This is ejectment. Robert L. Myers, Jr., for Plaintiff. Paul Ridgeway for Defendant. OPINION OF THE COURT. STAPLETON, J.--The question involved in the case at bar is one of construction, --whether the intent of X and the meaning of his will were to create a limitation on the estate of William Thorpe, or merely a provision that, in case of the death of William Thorpe without issue, before the vesting of the estate in him by the death of X, the estate that William Thorpe would have acquired is given to the...