The Calcutta Law Journal. July 1st 1933

In other words the statutory trust having been defeated by the act of murderer on the part of the wife there was a resulting trust for the husband enabling the executors to recover the policy money for the benefit of his estate (t). [...] " Although the insurance Company had to pay to the executors of the innocent husband the amount of the policy money the trust in favour of the married woman the murderess was treated as non-existent as if that clause had been struck out of the policy and :the money was held in trust for the husband's executors as if the trust in favour of the wife had never been inserted in the policy at all." [...] (4) The question was incidentally raised in the Maybrick case whether the motive for the crime was or was not material for the purpose of the application of the principle. [...] The Court passed over the legal representative of the murderer of his wife and granted administration to the estate of the intestate wife on the application of one of her next of kin. [...] bequest to Palmer the murderer of his own testator was held as revoked; the theory being that as the Will speaks as from the date of the death of the testator it must be presumed that the testator would have revoked the legacy or bequest in favour of his murderer.* (vi) This theory or presumption cannot be applied however; for example if the Will in the murderer's favour is made in the interva