The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-09-26
MRS. SEARLES' MILLIONS.
TEE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONTROL
OF MARX HOPKINS WEALTH

the Copartnership Annotated the
will-S18,OOO,o Worth of Prop
erty Transferred to the Concern a
short Time Before Mrs. Searles'
Death-searles BAD Practical Con-
troll of All the Assets Except the
$4,000 Which Went Annually to
hubbard & Stilman. the Lawyers.
From the NetD York Sun.
SALEM, MASS, Sept. 23.-Yesterday's
racy developments in the Searles will con-
test whetted the appetites of the spectators
for more details of the romantic story, and
there was crush of men and women at the
court house this morning. The women,
Young aud old, had a monopoly of the seats.
They were out in their most attractive
attire, and were evidently drawn there by
the prospect Of more interesting revelations
regarding the wooing Of the widow of Mark
Hopkins and her millions by the susceptible
Edward E. Searles of Methuen. With all
their enterprise, many of these fair
women were compelled to stand during
the entire hearing, which they did with a
heroic resolution that was beautiful to be-
hold. But their numbers we're small as
compared with the men, who jcstled and
eDowed each other in the corridors in
futile effort to get inside the door, or, at
least, within hearing distance of the witt
nesses. During the morning session they
we're not entertained with stories of tender
courtship or Borrowing widowhood. On the
contrary. there was very strong flavor of
cold-blooded heartlessness in some OF the
stories told of the struggle for the control of
Mrs. Searles' vast wealth within a few
- l,or- liz g.
disinherited son directed their energies this
morning to showing that even before the
widow of Mark Hopkins married the deco
rator of her house he was introducing to her
two New York lawyers, who are the
executors of her will, Thomas E. Stillman
and Thomas h. Hubbard, whose business it
was to secure from her power of attorney
giving them control of her vast estates, and
that this authority was used while she was
lying on her deGthbed and within forty
eight hours of her death TO dispose Of her
property, 30 that there would be no pos
sibllity of conveying it to her son, either by
deed or will. Interesting revelations
were anticipated when an at
tempt was made to show that she
was under the influence of spiritualists, but
nothing of tangible character in support
of this theory could be elected from Mr..
Searles. His cross-examinarion by Mr.
Buriey is being mercilessly conducted but
the witness passes through the trying ordeal
without t1inching and gives his testimony
in a cool, unruffied manner. Mr.. Lincoln
is full of OBJ ections. and is fertile in ex-
pedients to prevent the introduction of doc
umentary evidence in the possession of
counsel, but Mr.. Burley so cleverly lays his
foundation for such testimony that when
papers are called for the court usually
rules them in.
Mr.. Searles took the stand at 1920 a. M,
ana was at once subjected to a rigid exami-
nation by Lawyer Burley. Witness said
that fifteen days after his marriage to Mrs.
Mark Hopkins, they sailed for Europe on
wedding tour. He did not remember that
Mrs. Hopkins sent dispatch TO Timothy
Hopkins three days previous to the wedding
20 the effect that the ceremony was to take
place. He admitted that he had secured
from Timothy Hopkins the sum Of 100000,
which was expended on the wedding trip.
The trip lasted six months, and the party
visited England, France, Spain and At
RIGA.
Mr.. Burley asked if diary was kept
during athe wedding trip. Mr.. Searles
answered that no diary, cash books, check
books or itinerary WIS kept during the trip.
The bridal porty included witness and his
wife and several guests, including the Rev.
DR.. Clapp, his wife and daughter.
Mr.. Burley asked the witness if he bad
AhoAC VIC VI liz d we'll
known splIitualist, and Searles said that he
had rot.
did you make the acquaintance of
mediums, necromaucers, 'second-sight peo-
pie or any others Of that ilk during your
wedding journey through England, Scot
land and FranoeN
No such persons whatever" replied Mr..
Searles.
MIR. Searles said that he knew a Charles
BOllRs q Christian cCianfjSf RnllaO
frequently at Mrs. Hopkins house previous
to her marriage to witness, and witness was
present at sittinCs i'll Great Darlington,
Were table-tipping and other manifesto
uons OF spirit power were exemplihed for
amusement solely. Witness was not aware
that Mrs. Hopkins was ever patient of
DR.. Shades. Mrs Hopkins was i'll at one
Tune In Great Darlington aud was treated
by Or. Camp, a protested magnetic healer
During our matrimonial trip on the Con-
tlnent the affairs OF my wife were managed
by Timothy Hopkins"
Mr.. Burley then asked: "Do you claim
any title to any property of Mrs. Hopkins
except under the will now before the court
Of probater'
Witness replied: 'I suppose my INTEREST," in
the copartnership would antedate the will
After my marriage to Mrs. Hopkins several
tracts OF lands were transferred to me by
my wife. The deeds were executed in Eu-
rope in the spring of 1888. The property ia
cluded the estate and palace in Great Bar
rington and the Hopkins mansion and land
In San Francisco"
Witness said that be understood that the
marriage contract gave him the property
named, as well as other valuable interests.
The suggestion of a marriage contract was
made by Mrs. Hopkins. She was anxious
to have some one 20 manage her estate. No
tnird party was present when the proposal
FOR copartnership was made.
The details of this copartnership proved a
very interesting feature of the case, espe>
cislly when it was admitted by Mr.. Searles
chat he had the handling of over $500. 600 a
year TO do with as he pleased. The assets of
the copartnership were to be divided so that
MIR. and Mrs. Searles received each As per
cent. and Stlllmnn and Hubbard each S Der
cent. 1t was estimated that the first two
should every year receive 1929 900 each and
the other two S., 600 each. Whenever the
assets did not amount to SO much some
property should be sold, so as to make I'D
the amount. MIR. and Mrs. Searles were not
70 spend any time on the business, but Hub
bard and Stillman should, if necessary
spend all their time on the work of the CO.
partnership.
Now. sir" said Mr.. Burnley, do you
know how much property was turned over
10 this partnership or firm as assstsT'
Mr.. Searles-I don't: have no idea Of the
value of the property
W as 1t all your wife possessed"
MI. Searles-It was so understood
Ihe witness said that his wife never knew
M l amount of the assets of the copartner-
tllp: neither did he