The New York herald., 1922-05-10
Three Other Children Got
Only $1,000 Year and That
Was Cut, He Adds.
BLAMES JUST ONE PERSON.
Second Wife Made Complete
Change in Fathers Atti-
tude, He Charges.

Richard croker, Jr., announced idS
night that regardless Of the decision
Of the Supreme Court of Florida up
holding the Circuit Court ruling that
the former Tammany leader was men
tally competent members of the fam
lily are prepared to contest the will
which is supposed to cut them of
without allowances or with SIS. 900
each in trust. Mr.. Croker reviewed
the relations between his father and
himself and made known what was
involved in some Of the litigation
pending.
"Now that my father is dead am
as firmly resolved as heretofore to
bring to light all the facts involved in
this unfortunate situation. which has
resulted not from any acts on the part
Of his children but from the influence
Of one person who would profit
thereby"
The zone person" to whom reference
is made is the widow. Mrs. Croker. He
added:
were directed to obtaining a trial in the
courts of that State. No trial was had
in Florida on the facts. the hearing
determining whether there should be a
trial. A motion was made to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that action
could not be brought on behalf of my
father by next friend. The court so
held and that is the result of the Florida
decision. Just as soon as a determine
ton can be reached as 70 the course to
be followed L shall proceed to have the
matters which were raised in Florida
tried in the appropriate jurisdictions.
Got $15O,OOO to Start.
'In so far as have been Permitted to
60 to trial, my actions have been JUS
titled My father did give to my brother
Frank and to me $4,000 each to start
us in business twenty years ago. He
made no gifts to his other children
Upon Franks death, leaving an estate
amounting to approximately $4,000, my
father claimed and obtained the entire
estate. My brother had died intestate
The estate SO received was in large
part employed by my father in build
ing his home in Ireland, which he had
death.
THE three remaining children received
after my mothers death about $1,000
each per year out of trust fund estab-
lished by my mother and father many
years ago. After my fathers second
marriage this small allowance was with
drawn. The allowance of $50, 900 year
made to my mother during her lifetime
for the support of her family, of course
ceased upon her death. From about 1884
my fathers life was largely passed in
Europe. The care of his family from
that time forth devolved upon my
mother. Following my mothers death,
my father contemplated making ade-
quate provision for the maintenance OF
his children. These plans never materi-
allied owing TO his second marriage.
How Breach Arose.
"The trust fund referred to is the
one which my father in 1917 attempted
to revoke. That fund was largely com.
posed OF property placed in It by my
mother. The trust was established fol
the benefit Of the three younger children
excluding myself My father attempted
to revoke this trust in 1917 at or abou'
the same time during which he was con-
veying his. Florida and Irish properties
to his present wife. The effect of the
revocation would have been NOT only to
take from the children the funds which
he had contributed but also the funds
that my mother had contributed as well
l opposed this revocation, and In this
way the breach between my father and
myself arose. subsequently, / com
menced an action in the Supreme Court
OF this state to determine the rights
OF my father and his children In this
trust fund. and Judge Davis decided
that my father had no right to revoke
the trust. Prior to my fathers death
he appealed from this decision. This APP
peal Is still pending undetermined"
Mrs. w. I. Jenkins, widow OF the for-
mer Health OFFICER OF New York. Is
unable 60 explain the break between
Richard Croker. her brother, and his
family. In her first statement since his
death. Mrs. Jenkins expressed sorrow
that her brother had broken with his
sons and daughters and apparently cut
them off without inheritance.
Up 10 the time OF i4s second marriage
Mr.. Croker was not only devoted
father. but his solicitude for the welfare
OF his children was almost passion
with him, Mrs. Jenkins said. After the
marriage 60 the Indian Princess there
came a decided change and Mrs. Jenkins
expressed the view that in the latter
years his conduct had been queer TO
say the least. She said she never had
met the second Mrs. Croker and since
their marriage had seen little OF the
former Tammany leader on his visits