The morning call., 1891-10-22
A MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT.
Testimony Of The Respondent in The SsarlsS
Will Contest.

SALEM Mass), Oct 2l.-The hearing of
the Seares will case was resumed this morn
ing with Edward f. Searles on the stand
L. S. Dabney appeared for the first time
with counsel for the will, and Russell J.
Wilson of San Francisco joined the counsel
for contestants.
At the opening Burley, for contestants,
asked Mr.. Seares if he knew why Timothy
Hopkins had not been notified before No
vember 9th Of the proposed marriage. lie
replied that he never dictated to Mrs Hop
kins any ything in regard to her son. He
first heard of the marriage settlement from
Mrs. Hopkins. Witness objected to a mar
riage settlement after the English style, as
1t looked too much like buying husband.
Witness did not read the paper when 1t was
signed. He was told that it was marriage
settlement, but knew 1t could not impose
any giving by him to her. RS he had nothing
in particular to give by marriage settle
ment. His wife probably knew its contents,
as she had caused it to be made. lie did
not know whether there had been anything
paid as compensation for trustee under
this marriage settlement. Witness never
opened letters addre; sed to his wife before
marriage, and none without her permission
since.
Mr. Burley here called for diaries kept by
Mrs. Searle5 while in Europe
l.
turn and saw Mrs SearleS on business mat
ters. At the time of the marriage witness
heard Mrs Hopkins speak of peril to her
property and wished St:llman to go to Cali
fnrnia and look the matter up. His report
after returning was that the property was in
good shape. The first suggestion OF CO.
partnership came from Stllman at the sug-
geSti0n of Mrs. SearleS, to the effect that she
would like some arrangement made to man
age her business. Witness didn't read the
cOpartnerShip papers, as he had confidence
in the party that drew them. His wife never.
to his knowledge, took independent advice
in regard to the matter. The witness knew
some California property had been decided
to him, the deeds running direct from his
wife. Although unreeorded the deeds OF the
same property were in existence. Witness
did not understand that the lawyers were 10
have $50, coo year in any event, but they were
t. have 10 per cent of the income He under
stood that 10 per cent of both assets and in
come Of the partnership were ior their sery-
ices.
Mr.. Burley put in the will OF Edward F.
Seare.. made on the same date as that OF
his wife, now in contest, July 10th. 1t left
all his property to his wife. All the real
estate, witness stated, was ID his name, but
the deeds we're unrecOgded. He had not at
tempted to transfer them, and made no
papers or declarations OF trust in regard to
! them since his wfe's death, and the matter
| bad not been discussed in his presence. be
| did not know Of his wife signing more than
| one cOdicil to her will after the marriage,
| and no ether wills than those shown. 1t
| was suggested before they lift for Europe
! that deeds be made to the witness. He did
| not make the suggestion and did not know
/ who did. The papers were executed before
! they left, as Alr. S:llman was TO 80 to Cali
| fOrnia to look up the property. A letter
| received at Nice with the deeds was pro-
! duced. The letter gave the reason for
! making the deeds that as the title was in
! Stlllman and the insured title was not he
! had a repusnauce to recording the marriage
settlement.
At the afternoon session Mr.. Burley asked
witness if he was aware that Stillman and
Hubbard had a voice in the kind Of securi-
| ties which they could withdraw. He re-
| piled that lie only knew they could draw
! that amount. Witness had his name left of
| his office door TO relieve him from large
| number OF applicants of one kind aud
| another as lie was not to be an active part
| uer, Mrs, Seares wishing him to attend to
! domestic affairs. When he signed the sup
! Elemental agreement he understood the
| Great Darlington property was exempt from
| cOparinership assets and put IN ms name to
| protect II In case OF accident. Inc Will OF
| Edward SeaTles, dated November %, 1887,
| was introduced. 1t left an income of a sum
| sufficient to yield $4,000 per year for the
| support of his mother and tile residue to his
| wife. The trustees ana executors were his
! wife, Stillman and Hubbard.
Letters from Stillman and Hubbard and
| Mr.. and Mrs. Searles we're here offered ana
! occupied the remainder of the afternoon.
| Most of them are of no part cular interest.
| The first, dated February II, 1855, is from
! Mr.. Stillman in California, in which he esti-
mated Mrs. Searles' property, exclusive OF
the Great Darlington estate, at Sj0,0C0,O00,
counting the Indebtedness OF the Western
Development Company and the Pacific In
proVement Company at face value. Refer
| ring to the desire that Tim should have
money enough torun Sherwood Hall he says
it will require the income from S500,00C
yearly. Tim had honestly endeavored to dc
his best for her and any mistake had been
due to youth and ineXDerience. November,
IS, 1887 he writes that hG had drawn a new
will for Mrs. Searles. which had been rem
dered necessary by the change in affairs
| April IS, 1888, Stlllman writes that the
| property is Of more value than he at first
thought and with ordinary wise manage
ment would give larger income than she
could spend and amass property to double
| her Income.