The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-15
DAUGHTER VS.. MOTHER
New Phase In the Celebrated
Crooks Estate Liti-
cation.
MRS. SUSAN SMITHS ANSWER.
She Demands Her Share Of Mat
thew Crooks Thousands.
Her Charges.

A new and sensational element was in
terlected into the Crooks estate litigation
yesterday by the filing of an answer and
cross complaint by the decedent's daugh-
ter, Mrs. Susan Smith.
Mrs. Smith is the wife of one of the
wealthiest residents of Santa Cruz
Director-General Smith of the late water
carnival held in that city. In this answer
and cross-complaint Mrs. Smith accuses
her mother, Mrs. S. Crooks, of misrepresen-
tatlon and the squandering of property be-
longing to her children-the trust estate.
Matthew Crooks died in February, 1879,
leaving an estate worth over $500, 900. Ac-
cording to the will the property was be-
queathed to his wife, Susan Crooks, in
trust for their children, providing that out
OF the income from said estate the widow
should pay all taxes and other expenses
and maintain and educate the children.
1t was also provided that she should pay
each one of the children $1,000 when they
became q years of age; that she should
control and have the income of the estate
during her lifetime, and that after her
death and when the youngest child be-
came of age the estate should be divided
among the heirs. share and share alike.
Half of the Matthew Crooks estate went
to Susan Crooks, the widow as community
property and the other half she held in
trust for the children. The will of Crooks
senior was admitted to probate and the
widow received her appointment as ex-
ecutrlx, as the records show. In the in
ventory the personal and real property in
Alameda, San Mateo, San Francisco, Con-
ira Costa and Marin counties were APP
praised at over $4,000. Subsequently the
decree was made distributing the estate
as mentioned, half to Susan Crooks in
dividually and half for the term of her
natural life.
Mrs. Crooks died in 1884, She left will
which was admitted to probate, and her
two sons, Jonathan j. and Jackson G.
Crooks, were appointed executors. Her
estate was appraised at a little over $780,
600. Soon after her death suit was brought
by the executors, her two sons, against the
other children, among them Mrs. M. j.
Morffew, wife of DR.. Morffew, the dentist,
and Mrs. Susan Smith, wife of the Santa
Cruz capitalist, for an accounting. 1t was
set forth that since settlement claimed
to have been made by Mrs Susan Crooks
with the benefciaries under the will in
1889, no settlement or accounting had been
made, and that it was necessary an ac-
counting should be had concerning the
property held in trust by the said Susan
Crooks. That action is now pending be-
fore Judge Hebbard.
Messrs. Gunnison, Booth and Bartnett,
attorneys for Mrs. Smith of Santa Cruz,
yesterday afternoon filed the answer and
cross-complaint containing the startling
allegations referred to. Mrs. Smith sets
forth in her cross-complaint that she and
her mother had q conversation in New
York in 1889 in reference to the affairs of
the trust estate created under the will of
the formers father, whereby they were all
to share alike. She asked her mother for
an accounting allowing the true condition
the daughter says, refused to give
such an account and told her she
(the daughter) could get it by legal
proceedings. The mother said it was
merely matter of form. The conference
was perfectly friendly, and Mrs. Smith,
after being assured by her mother that she
with the other children under the trust as
under her fathers will, signed settle
ment.
And it is alleged further "that the rela-
tionship between Mrs. Crooks and her
daughter, Mrs. Smith, were affectionate,
and that the latter did not know the true
condition of the affairs of the trust estate.
and that Mrs. Crooks did not disclose them
to her. In October, 1889, Mrs. Smith re-
ceived letter from her mother inclosing
an instrument to be signed by the former,
and, relying on her mothers promise that
she should be treated fairly, Mrs Smith
signed the same. twas also represented to
her that similar instrument waving the
right to an accounting had been signed by
the other benefciaries." Mrs. Smith |
further sets forth that sat the time she
held the conversation with her mother in
New York she had no idea that the prop
erty of the trust estate had been entirely
wasted, and that she only learned of this
a few weeks prior to the filing of the an
swer and cross-complaint; that Mrs. Susan
Crooks did not provide for the said Susan
Smith in her will as promised"
Continuing, Mrs. Smith says in her COM
plant:
1.-THE instrument was signed wholly
on Mrs. Susan Crooks representations,
and had an accounting been made at that
time the trust estate would have been
found squandered, and, in fact, insolvent;
that Susan Crooks would have been per-
sonally liable on account of her admins
tration; that it is necessary for an account
ing to ascertain the true condition of the
trust estate, and that to the best of her
knowledge and belief Susan Crooks estate !
owes the Matthew Crooks estate $500, 000 |
due to her wasting OF the former trust
estate, the management. OF which was in
her charge"
She therefore asks that the instrument
dated October 2, 1889, be declared null and |
void and delivered to the court for can
collation., and that full accounting be
had
This means an effort to set aside all the
previous purported accountings and to
prove that not penny of Susan Crooks
individual estate is left by reason of the
charge against it through the alleged
wasting of the first estate.
-