New-York tribune., 1903-07-26
BURNS EXECUTORS FIGHT.
Wido7c and Er-CaShier Would Dust
Sister of Restaurant Nan.

Decision has been reserved by Surrogate Fitz-
gerald application by Mrs. Emily E Burns,
the widow and one Of the executors of the Will OF
Samuel F. Burns. the Sixth-ave restaurant keeper
and Morrison Rogers his executor and former
cashier, the letters of administration grant
ed to Mrs. Susie E. Fitchet their co-executriX, and
a sister of Burns, revoked on the ground that she
acting against them in their management OF
Burnss estate.
Rastus S. Ransom appeared for Rogers and
Mrs. Burns and said the application was serious
both for his clients and the creditors OF the
Burns estate. The ground upon which he asked
that Mrs. Fitchet be removed eXecutriX was
that Of 'improvdence" Mr. Burns, counsel said
had by his will divided his property into three
parts. of which his widows share was one-thlrd;
Mrs. Fitchet got one-half and another sister, Mrs
Annie E De Camp, one-sixth. He expressed the
desire that corporation should be formed to carry
on the restaurant business, which had proved
profitable. the capital stock to be distributed be-
tween his legatees and devsees. The claims OF the
creditors amounted to 100000 The property
where the business was carried on, in Sixth-ave.
West Forty fourth and Forty-ffth sts, was worth
about $27500J, and was mortgaged for $llVO' leaV-
ing equity of more than 100000. The profits Of
the business had been about 10000 year, and was
now being carried by the executors, and a con-
siderable amount of money was expended by them
in the improvement of the property. Rogers, who
had intimate knowledge of the business. and
who Mr. Burnss contdant and friend, was
appointed manager at a salary of $So0 a year, and
the wages amounted to about $500 week.
Mrs. FItchet had quarrelled, Mr. Ransom said,
with Mrs. Burns and with Mr.. Rogers; had refused
to attend their meetings; had charged them with
opening a safe after Mr. Burns's death and taking
| from it a bag containing $4,000 in gold. and had
also gone far say that Mrs Burns was
not the widow of the testator that their rela-
tions had been improper. These statements, coun-
sci said, were utterly untrue. and the actions OF
| Mrs. Fitchet had already seriously injured the
goodwill of the business, which the chief asset
He asked that she be removed, that the business
| could be properly transacted and not run down.
| Judge W. @. McCrea denied all the allegations
made by the petitioners for Mrs. Fitchets removal
| and said she had opposed the attempt OF Mrs.
| Burns and Rogers to get the whole management
of the business into their hands to the exclusion
of herself and her sister, although they owned two
| thirds of the estate. He said Rogers had only a
salary of 5000 prior to the death of Mr. Burns,
| but it was then promptly raised TO $4,60O, and an
! engagement was made with him by which he could
not be discharged for at least eighteen months.
Mrs Fitchet quite satisfied to join in the
| formation of the company desired by her brother,
provided she and her sister got two-thrds Of the
| satisfied that Mrs. Burns and Rogers should
| do whatever they wished, TO the detriment of her
! property and that of Mrs. De Camp.
| AS to the allegation that Mrs. Fitchet had as
serted that Mrs. Burns not her brothers
widow. Judge McCrea denied she had said
so. but had stated she never knew her brother was
| married. although he and she had been the
| usual afectionate terms which should exist be-
| tween brother and sister until his death.
| Surrogate Fitzgerald took the papers under ad-
| Visement.