Los Angeles herald., 1891-09-24
SEARLES WILL CASE.
THE EXAMINATION OF MR.. sEARLES
CONTINUED.
He Details the Financial Relations En-
tered Into by Mrs. Hopkins with Him.
self When She Married Him-An In
teresting Question Left Unanswered.

SALEM, Mass, Sept. 23.-The second
day of the Searles will case opened with
big crowd. The examination of Searles
was continued. Witness and his wife
went to Europe November %, 1887, on
their wedding tour. Previous to starting
on their wedding tour, Mrs. eearles se-
cured funds, about 100000. The trip
was for six months, and included the
witness, his wife, lady's maid and Rev.
DR.. Clapp, his wife and daughter. He
did not meet DIR. Slade or any spiritual
lists on that trip. He knew Charles
Bolles, who, he believed. called himself
a harmony scholar or Christian
scientist, but he never knew OF his at
tending Mrs. Searles. Timothy Hop
kins managed Mrs Searles' affairs up to
the time of partnership.
After their marriage, while in Europe,
witnesses wife made over to him certain
deeds at Nice. The suggestion of CO.
partnership came from Mrs. Searles.
The articles of partnership were
here put in, between Mary F. Searles
and Edward F. Searles, Thomas E. Still
man and Thomas Hubbard, to manage
all the property of Mr.. and Mrs. Searles
and pay the income to the parties, Mr..
and Mrs. Searles to receive As per cent
each, and Stillman and Hubbard each
S per cent OF the income; if it did not
amount to $500 900, to be brought up to
that amount by sales of securities.
Mrs. Hopkins became acquainted
with Stillman and Hubbard about
year before the marriage, and on Octo-
ber 81, 1887, Stillman was given power
of attorney from Mr.. Searles and Mrs.
Hopkins. There was also general
power Of attorney from Mrs. Hopkins to
Stillman, dated November s, 1887.
This was the same date as the mar
riage, with supplementary certifcation
after the marriage. This was never
revoked to the knowledge OF witness.
Witness knew of q transfer of stock to
the firm few days before her death.
Witness saw the attorneys in New York
five days before, and told them her con-
dition was critical. No transfer was
made until after her death; could not
say what the stocks were or their
value, nor did not know and never
knew what the assets of the copartner-
ship were; never heard the amount
stated. Witnesses share of the income
of the firm was 45 per cent, but he
drew both his and his wife's in
come and at her request used the
money to pay general household ex-
penses. Witness deposited no money
to his individual account and drew
checks against it.
Burleigh then called for the check
books. Witness continued: Mrs. Searles
had no individual account during the
time they lived together. He could
not give the average annual profits of
the copartnership, but it was between
$5 ,00O,O 900 and $6,OO0,OOO.
At the afternoon session another
power of attorney was put in, dated
July IS, 1888, from Mary 0. Searles to
Thomas f. Stillman and Thomas Hub
bard. This was general power of at
torney, and contained declaration
that as it was coupled with interest
therein, it was irrevocable. A
transfer was put in, dated June Is,
1888, from Mary +. Searles to
Thomas f. Stillman, of various railroad
stocks, and a note of the Pacific I'M
provement company for $4,000 and
20,750 shares of Central Pacific stock,
the aggregate amounting to $4,000, 900,
and this Stillman in turn transferred to
E. F. Searles, and he in turn transferred
it, with 1400 shares of Washington
Building association stock, $146,000 in
scrip of the company, and 1000 shares Of
national bank stock, which he had re-
ceived from his wife in trust, to the firm
of Searles, Stillman & Hubbard.
Objection being made to the question
to Mr.. Searles, "What did your estate
consist of at the time of your mar
riage 2" an adjournment was made to to-
morrow morning.
DIR. Burchard Ill.