The New York herald., 1922-07-11
Brother Howard and Sister,
Mrs. Ethel White, Join
Richard, Jr., in Fight.
CASE STARTS in FEW DAYS
Second Wife Charged With
Exerting Malicious Influ-
ence to Cause Rift.

y
terday formally declared their inten-
ton of contesting the will in which
the former leader of Tammany left all
of his property to his second wife
Bula Edmonson Croker.
Richard Croker. Jr., said that with
in the next few days his lawyers
would file notice or contest in the
Palm Beach, Fla, county court, where
his fathers will was offered for pro-
bate Saturday. Howard Croker and
Mrs. Ethel Croker White issued a
statement yesterday in which they
said they would act Jointly with their
brother Richard. They charge their
stepmother with exerting malicious
influence to divert the Croker fortune
from them and turn him away from
all his children and especially against
Richard"
Mrs. Florence Croker Morris of Read
ipg England. Is the only one of the
four Croker children who has not been
heard from. Mrs. Morris. wife of Major
c. j. Morris of the British army, was
mentioned in a memorandum accom-
panying the will in which Mr.. Croker.
Sr., requested his wife. as executrix.
to give Florence 10000 because she
is the only one of my surviving children
that has ever shown any gratitude to
me-"
Florence Away for 10 Years.
In regard to this the statement says:
Our sister Florence, who was not in
this country for fifteen years. was not
familiar with the situation and did not
know the facts as we know them. She
was guided entirely by the suggestions
made or the views held by my father
and his wife and had no other source
of information in the matter.
THE copy of the will as published in
the newspapers shows that no provision
whatever was made for any of the
children. even Florence. The paper re-
ferred to as d codicil is merely note
written on the stationery that our
father was accustomed to use in Ire
land. In this note the suggestion is
made that Florence be remembered. We
are informed that the note is no part
of the will and is wholly ineffective
The publication Of the note apparently
is made for the purpose of showing
that our father had not turned against
all his children. The omission to in
olude Florence in the will, however, is
obvious and significant"
The statement declared further that
tl,A cnil6ron informs a.
ton concerning the will except what
has appeared in the newspapers. 1t
refers to a breach between them and
their father growing out of their re-
fusal to consent to the revocation of a
trust fund Of about $133.O00 to have
been divided. between Ethel. Florence
and Howard on the death of both
parents. 1t continues:
Our attitude with respect to the rev.
ocation of the trust agreement has
been sustained by the Supreme Court
In this State in the litigation COM
menced by our brother Richard, to
account as trustee under said trust
The court distinctly held that our
father had no right to revoke the trust
agreement and that upon his death the
principal of the trust fund must be
divided among the three children mem
toned.
I'm 1917 our father insisted that this
trust be revoked and that the trust
funds be sent to him. We visited our
father for the purpose Of discussing
this matter and informed him that we
were unwilling to have the trust re-
voked and wished to have our brother,
Richard, continue as trustee and to
have the trust funds kept intact, so
that the arrangement made by our de-
ceased mother would be carried out.
large part of the trust fund had been
contributed by our mother out of her
own resources. The purpose of botb
parents in the trust agreement was TO
provide for the three younger children
upon the death of the parents. While
our father was disappointed at our re-
rusai TO consent to the revocation of
the trust agreement he remained an
most friendly terms with us and was.
quite friendly with us in the month ~
October, 1919 "a
Richard Lost Control.
Prior to the attempted revocation a,
the trust our father did withdraw from
our brother Richard the control of his
affairs In this country and had turned
that over to his second wife. No one
had any objection TO this because we ali
felt our father was at liberty to place
the management of his affairs where he
pleased. II became evident shortly after.
however, that efforts were being made
by our fathers second wife to turn him
away from all his children and espe-
cially against our beloved brother Rich
ard, who was the most familiar with his
anairs. We realize now that II was
essential that the friendly and affection
ate relations existing between our father
and his children must be broken up II
his entire fortune was to be diverted
from them We 20 ,,,t ,>
part our brother Richard had played In
managing our fathers affairs. as we'll as
his management OF the trust estate, and
knowing the malicious influence being
exerted on our father we naturally sup
ported Richard