New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-01
BARS WORK WILL ACTION
Surrogate Dismisses Complaint
of C. S. Burr, Former Senator.
SAID EXECUTORS CONSPIRED
Charged That Codicils Favoring
Him Were Withheld, but Ap-
plicatjon Is Denied.

For fully four months there has been
pending in the surrogates Court pro-
ceeding over the alleged failure Of the ex-
ecutors OF the will OF Frank Work TO file
all the codicils made by the noted horse
man and retired stock broker. The first
knowledge OF such proceedings became
known yesterday through the publication
Of the decision OF Surrogate Fowler.
The proceeding was an application by
former Senator Carl S. Burr, Of Suffolk
County. for an order directed TO the ex-
ecutors Of the Work Will 70 show cause
why they should not produce the codicils
which the petitioner said were not filed
with the other fifteen codicils that accom-
panied the will, or submit to an examtna-
ton regarding the alleged withheld instru-
ments. The executors OF the will OF Frank
Work arc J. Henry Work, his nephew:
Peter Cooper Hewitt. son-in-law Frank
x. Sturgs, a former business associate,
and Francis e. Clark.
Mr. Burr said In his application that on
information and belief he was mentioned
o. beneficiary Of the Work estate under
one Of the codicils. and that there had
been fraud and conspiracy TO suppress and
conceal the documents. Surrogate Fowler
denied the application, partly on the
ground that there were no facts 10 warrant
the issuance Of the order asked for. and,
further. that the former Senator was barred
by law from making the application at this
time after the probate OF the will and codi-
els fled.
Work. Hewitt, SturgIs and Clark, the re-
spondents. contended that the petitioner
had accused them Of tho commission Of a
felony. AMI that II the application was
granted It might be used In any possible
effort a. a conviction. They also said that
II they were compelled to give testimony
in the proceeding that would give them I'M
munity
Mr. Work died on March Is. 1911, leaving
an estate estimated to be worth from Sl5,-
coo. OOo to $50. 0oO.o 600. His will was fled
IN the Surrogatas' office on April 90, 1911.
and with it were filed fifteen codcils which
largely reflected the sentiments OF the tes-
tator with regard 10 the courtshlp Of MS
daughter who was then Mrs. Frances Ellen
Burke Roche. By Aurel Batonyi, the Hun
carian whlr, whom she married and then
divorced Then Nj. Work after his warn
irCs 10 his daughter failed 10 prevent
the marriage. cut Of the allowance of $l2,-
600 which he had made in codicil for his
daughter but provided that his executors
could make ~ allowance to her Of any
amount they thought necessary In case s1e
separated from Batonyi and was I'm need.
he also took back the tostamentary dispo-
sition 20 his daughter Of his house ~ No.
- Eas, goth street and gave II TO his two
graudsons tho sons Of Mrs. Burke Roche.
The bulk OF the estate went to the two
Craudsons and mis- granddaughter. M.
Works original provision FOR his daughter
was $4,000 n year, which he later in
creased TO 100000. then cut f. down 10 sl2,-
ooo and finally cut f. on entirely. II is
Understood hat some arrangement was
made with Mrs Batonv hy the executors.
Mr. Burr said I'm his petition TINT the
codicll or codicls dated by tho testator in
1917 were not the last made by him. but
mat ne made one or several subsequent 70
October 80. 1907.
Surrogate Fowler sad, among other
things. in r.s decision that the sec
ton o. the code invoked by Mr.. Burr pro-
vlIlrr Tor tho discover OF documentary
instruments "contemriates that such pro-
,,odlnr shall be taken before entry OF p
decree ~ proha'" or after tho vacatrr % en-
EXISTING decree. II f. appears that 2 decree
or probate has been entered such decree
IS bar n thN application under Section
c62la."
Nr Burr said last night that he was not
related to Nj Work, but that many per
sons know ~ them mutual affairs. Further
than this the former Senator did not care