The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-11-08
B. ]. YORK ACCUSED
OF ESTATE FRAUD
COnspired IA Years for Million
Of A. w. Shepard, Is
Charge
CHILD BASIS OF SUIT
Brooklyn Lawyers Son Also
Named by Father Of
Hazel Myers.
CHILD BASIS OF SUIT

Bernard ]. York. prominent Brooklyn
lawyer and political leader. and his son.
Frank q. York, are charged in COM
plant filed in the Supreme Court with
conspiring over a period of fourteen
years to gain control of the s1.0OO.o0O
estate OF the late DR.. A. Warner Shep-
ard of Brooklyn. Both father and son
denied the charges last night as ri
diculous" and mot worthy of a reply.
The charge is made by David w.
Myers, mechanic. 101 Troy avenue
Brooklyn. father of Hazel Myers Shop
ard. the fifteen-year-old schoolgirl whom
DR.. Shepard's widow adopted and named
as her principal heir. The widow died
September last, being then the wife or
Walter c. Morris, her third husband.
The complaint states the adoption of
Hazel first by her grandmother and
then by Mrs Shepard-Morris. her aunt.
were schemes of the Yorks and that
Myers did not realize the Importance OF
the consent he signed in 1905 when
Hazel was one year old. The lawyers
led him to believe, Myers charges. that
the girls status would remain that OF
daughter TO him. OF the second adop-
ton by his sister he had no knowledge,
he says.
Continuous efforts were made by
Myers to reclaim his daughter. the com
plant states. but he was always put off
with various excuses and never realized
he was the victim OF misrepresentation
which he says the Yorks made to him.
wfthdraws VIII Fight.
Myers, who first sought to set aside
the will of Mrs. Shepard Morris. in which
Il. e. Aot1 OH 1y
has withdrawn that suit because It
would place him In the position of being
opposed to his daughters interests. he
states, but the present action seeks to
nullify the adoptions OF the girl and have
her restored TO him.
The complaint states that the Yorks
we're intimate friends and legal adj
visers of DR.. Shepard and drew up his
will in 1907; that they offered ii for pro-
bate and settled with his relatives 50
that the widow, Hazel's foster mother,
would get the whole estate. Mrs. Shep-
ard was DR.. Shepard's housekeeper for
twenty years before he married her
shortly before his death from morphine
poisoning in 1907.
1t further charges that the attorneys
deliberately conspired with the widow
to turn Hazel against her father. the
the Yorks induced Mrs. Shepard to sign
will which gave half the residue to
Certain brothers and sisters and half to
Hazel. and named Frank i. York as sole
executor without bond and testamentary
guardian of the girl
The disposition OF the real estate and
investments. the charges state. was left
entirely to York and the will specifically
provided his judgment was not to be
questioned by anybody or i'll any court.
Details of Complaint.
The complaint then goes on to say:
THE adoption proceedings were part
and parcel of a conspiracy and fraud
practised upon this plaintiff (Myers).
the infant defendant and Mary S.
Morris, deliberately with intent on the
part of the said Bernard j. York and
Frank r. York, so that at the time of
the death of Mary Morris there might
be in existence a defenceless and help
less infant requiring a guardian In or
der that the said Frank 3. York might
prepare will such as was prepared,
making himself testamentary guardian
of the said infant and leaving n part of
the estate to other relatives OF the de-
ceased to deter them from taking what
risk there might be of contestiug the
will"
Frank Il. York said last night: 1T is
ridiculous and not worthy of reply. OF
course. we will answer It In court"
His father, Bernard j. York. said:
1T Is very wide of the truth. am sure
no part of II will be sustained In court.
There is a lot l could say. but the flu
ture welfare of the little girl Is at stake
and her interests viii be protected. re-
On I'd leea of the cnnsnnnencea -