New-York tribune., 1920-04-01
Former Tammany Chief
tain Declared lncompe-
tent; Wife Is Accused
of Undue Influence
Plot 10 Alternate
Affection Is Seen
Affidavit Charges She Has
Control Of Practically
All Of His Property

The two sons and the daughter Of
Richard Croker, former Tammany
chicftain, announced through counsel
yesterday that they had obtained a
temporary injunction in the Palm
Beach County, Fla. court preventing
transfer or disposal Of their fathers
property in that state pending pro-
ed to manage it.
Attidavits filed by Richard Croker
.ir.. Howard Croker and Mrs Ethel
Croker White charge their father is
not competent to manage his own af-
fairs, that he is being unduly in
fuenccd by his present wife and that
she is seeking to ALLEVIATE him from
his children "to further her own in
terests."
It is alleged the second Mrs Croker
has used her ascendancy over her aged
husband to obtain control Of his for
tune, and it was announced that the ap-
plication for an injunction was merely
preliminary to an attempt on the part
OF the former bosss children to have
committee of his property appointed.
An application to this end already has
been made, it was said.
William +. McComos, counsel for
the Croker children. said the order on
which the injunction was obtained was
returnable in the Palm Beach court
next week. The Croker estate in
S2,oO0000. Another estate in Ireland
is valued at S1,000,o00. The former
bosss total estate, real and personal.
is in the neighborhood of $4,000, 1000.
Mrs Croker ST. is in Oklahoma In
dan whom he married in November,
1914, two months after Che death of
his first wife He was then seventy
four years old.
Declared Dominated by Wife
The action in Florida is based on an
affidavit made by Mrs. Ethel White, of
Cedarhurst, Long Island, who says she
was Mr.. Croker's favorite child until
his second marriage. After that event,
which took place within two months of
their mothers death, and to which none
of the bridegroom's children were in
vited. all his children seemed to be re-
garded with equal dsfavor by MIR.
Croker, she says.
She declares her conviction that Mr..
affairs because of the domination eX-
ercsed over him by his second wife,
who, she says, not only has Alenated
him from his children but has OBJ
tanned practically all his property"
In her affidavit she says that from the
time of his marriage she never has
seen. her father except in the presence
OF his wife, who monopolized the con-
versation. In 1915 and subsequently,
when she saw her father, she said, he
appeared to be completely under his
wife's influence and manifested no af-
lection for his children. Her affidavit,
in part, follows:
From the time of his marriage, in
1914, he has never provided me with
any money at any time, excepting a
the trust fund established in the life
time Of my mother.
Tells of Wife's Attitude
"My share of the income from said
fund allowed me by my father amount
ed to about $1,000 or $1,700 year. At
a later date he attempted to take even
this income away from me. His ap-
pearancc at this time was quite differ
ent from that of the year 1914. He
had his hair, which was prcvously y
white, dyed light brown
81 noticed in the newspapers in the
early part Of 1919 that my father was
quite i'll at Palm Beach. Upon reading
the notice in question I went down to
Palm Beach for the express purpose of
seeing him.
81 went out to his home at Palm
Beach and saw him in bed. Each
time that visited him his wife was
CONTINUED page eIshN