Morning journal and courier., 1891-09-23
GREAT WILL CONTEST.

The Test of Mrs. Searles, Beques BeSun-Tfmothy Hopkins Want, His Foster-Motherss Many millio mi Review of the Remarkable Fact, of the Case-Was Undue Influence
 Exerted by MT. Searlesa SALEM, Mass, Sept. 22-The hearing ir
 the Searles will case was opened in the
 probate court this morning. The hearing
 is or. petition of the executor for the al.
 lowance of the will. The executor was
 represented by Solomon Lincoln, Frederick
 Dodge, William Allen Butler and Richard
 Dodge. Timothy Hopkins was in court
 with his counsel, Hon. W. c. Endicott, E.
 T. Burley and Judge J. H. Choate. The
 first proceedings were the reading of the
 petition and will. William o. Dodge, a
 witness to the will, testified to going from
 Cambridge to Methuen July 16, 1888, and drawing the will of Mrs. Searles. It was read to her and she signed it after declar- ing that it expressed her wishes. She was,
 to all appearances, of sound mind.
 In point of the number of millions in
 volved and the unique grounds of contest the case will no doubt take the foremost
 PAe@So HI Sdi iAOhb AiuOtlCdu The general nature of the case is already
 well understood by newspaper readers The widow of Mark Hopkins died a few weeks ago at ern aaa e5 Iy W s the 1 Shoe great ond husband, Mir. Ssarles. The adopted son. Timothy Hopkins and half dozen or more dis tant relatives have decided to contest the will on the ground that undue influence was brought to bear upon the testatrix by Mr. Searles.
 The nature of this alleged undue influence is variously described. Spiritualism is said by many to have been Q prominent feat1re others; principally in Great Harrington, have it
 quer during the last tSree yeprs of her life. With the truth or falsity of these disputed points it is not proposed here to deal. The court is about to pass upon them. There are enough undisputed facts involved in the strange story and the glfmpses of odd phases of human uniqueness that every one with a particle of curiosity and imagination in their being will find the subject of absorbing interest from first to last.
 This interest is magnifed at the outset by the fact that MT. Searles, few days ago, offered to would withdraw his objections to the probatng of his mothers will. The young man refused the offer of this immense sum with disdain that was almost contemptuous It seems fair to argue that there must be weighty reasons for the making and the refusing of such an offer. Even now there are some connected with the case who believe that it will not be allowed to go to trial CT
 Rumors have been plenty as gossips could re- have dealt severely with Mir. Searles, both be- cause the circumstances of the case make his action the most convenient to romance about. and because he has denied himself persistently to the public eye and ear-thus challenging the criticism of those who think they are good enough to see anyone Cand that includes most of uS).
 The plain facts in the case are these: z, Mrs. Hopkins, at the age of 73, married Mir. style of life materially changed. She, who had been very fond of society, became almost a re- cluse. When she died she left her whole fortune tn hll bQVino QlraQHU har o1n tad son hundred thousand dollars and place worth ten thousand year.
 From this, two things are argued: First, that Mir. Searles obtained her consent to their mar riage by means of spiritualism or by drugging her with wine, and secondly, that he brought undue pressure to bear on her to cause her to make the will as she did.
 The facts in the case do not lead necessarily to such conclusions. They may be true; they may not.
 In the afternoon session the examination of Edward F. Searles was continued. He first met going to her house with a letter of introduction to look over her house: met her several times going on excursions into the country, twice with her and her daughter-in-law He then detailed his acquaintance and visits to Mrs. Hopkins. The first proposition of marriage between the two came from Mrs Hopkins in New York in the fall of 1883. He did not assent to it for year. but in December, 1884, he entertained the proposition: knew at the time that Mrs. Hopkins was born in never previously proposed marriage to any one. Witness could not well help knowing that Mrs Hopkins was a lady of large means. He de- layed accepting the proposition of marriage to give her Q chance to be she was satisfied and after he entertaineds it, delayed marriage for three years. In the spring of 1886 went to Florida as the guest of Mrs. Hopkins in her private car. She was accompanied by Miss Cass of Great Harrington. Witness from 1885 to 1887 was experimenting the building of Mrs Hopkins house at Great Harrington He had understood that the son, Timothy in connection with the railroad people, managed her affairs had been told by Mrs. Hopkins that Timothy had objected to the marriage but had cherished no i'll toward him for it; the agreement of mar riage was entered into in September, 1887, on witness part, because he greatly admired her. In reply to question he said that he married her for all she had, both love and money, but should never have married her for money alone Did not know of the will made the day of the marriage, Novembers, s, 1Ss7 until after her death, but did not think it was in tentionally made behind his back.
 A marriage contract made at the same time was also put in, conveying by Mrs. Hopkins to T. E. Stillman as trustee for the benefit of Edward F. Searles after the marriage the mansion in San Francisco. improved and unimproved land in Sacramento, mountain lands in Summit, Soda Springs, Cal, red wood and timber lands on the coast range two parcels of quarry lands the Great Harrington property and four lots on Ninth street, New York. This contract was can celled June 16, 1888.
 The hearing was here adjourned to tomorrow O. AR m,