The morning call., 1891-10-25
The SEARLES
WILL VALID.
End Of The First Chapter in the
Contest Over an Estate.
Decision Rendered In Favor Of the Re-
SpOndent-NOtiGe Of an Appeal From
the Findings Of the Court.
Epeelal TO THE MORNING CALL.

SALEM, Mass, Oct 24-At the opening
OF the days hearing of the Searles will case
this morning Burley began the cross-eXam-
ination of General Hubbard. Witness had
thought and still thought the copartnership
papers perfectly legal and valid under the
law of the State of New York. Witness did
not know whether Mrs. Searles ever had
independent legal advice before signing the
papers. There never was any direct agree
ment to drop the name of Searles from the
copartnership. 1t was done at the request
of Mr.. Searles. After Mrs. Searles' death
notice was sent to certain corporations that
the firm owned stock formerly in the name
OF Mrs. Searles. There never was any at
tempt at secrecy as to the copartnership.
Once, at St. Paul, witness had declined 10
give details to Timothy, telling him he pre-
ferred him to get them from his mother. If
witness and Stilman had refused to allow
Mrs. Searles to draw out securities as they
desired, their remedy would be by suit on
equity, breach of contract, or for the disso-
luton OF copartnership. During the past
three years witness spent half his time at
his Office in the Mills building.
Burlpy then called for the books of CO.
partnership, which were produced.
Witness continued: There was provision
in the articles for the continuance of the
copartnership after the death of one of the
parties. There have been some transfers Of
real estate in California. direct from Mrs.
Searles to the parties since the deeds were
executed to Mr.. Searles.
Witness was then examined on the cash
book of the firm. The income had always
been about the minimum, averaging about
ST, 600, coo. There have been no drafts on
the principal by either party. Stillman, in
1888, when they met Timothy in St. Paul,
endeavored to dissuade him from going
East. Witness income before the forma-
ton Of this copartnershp was about $4,000
per year, but by agreement with the firm Of
Butler, Hubbard 81 Stllnan. after this,
his own income decreased SIS, ,OeO,
and Sullmaus also decreased, while
the interest of the six junior par
ners increased. Counsel stated that
$4,000 was charged by Butler. Hubbard Il
Sullman for services rendered prior to the
formation Of the c0partnership. Burley
stated later that he should desire 10 put in
authorities as to the New York law in re-
gard TO contracts between husband and
wife. In some OF the transfers OF Cali
fornia property both Mr.. and Mrs. SearleS
signed. A Telegram fCom Timothy had
nothing to 90 with the execution of powers
OF attorney.
Lincoln here rested his case, and Burley
was askel # they had not summoned Tim
othy Hopkins as a witness and TO produce
ali tho letters lrUn his mother and &c neral
Hubbard. He replied that such a sum mons
had been issued, but he was not in charge
of the case. This closed the great case aId
Judge EndicOtt stated that they were content
to submit it. Judge Harm n then stated
that he should sustain the viii aud Buriey
gave notice that they would claim an ap-
neal