The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1891-10-22
HOPKINS WILL CASE
The Great Suit Cnce More in
Progress at Salem.
sEARLEs AGAIN ON THE STAND.
He Didn't Want People to Think He Was
Bought for a Husband

His Reasons for Directing to the Mar
riags settIement-when He Stated That
He Never Did Business on Sunday
Even Tim Hopkins smIIsd-Valuo of
Mrs. Hopkins Property-standingR Room
Only at the Trial
SALEM, Mass, Oct % Standing room
was at premium in the Probate Court
| yesterday, the occasion being the re-
sumption of the Hopkius-Searles will
contest. Edward r. Searles was called
to the stand, and Mr.. Burley after calling
attention to numerous transfers of per-
sonal property from Mrs. Searles to
Stillman and subsequently to Searles,
began a rigid cross-eXamination.
Searles in reply to aquestion as to the
time Of the marriage agreement, stated
1t was in October 1888.
searles was unable to tell why Timothy
I'Hopkins was not informed Of the mar
riage day as the matter was left entirely
with Mrs. Hopkins.
Witness testified he did not suggest to
Mrs Hopkins that it would be well to
notify Timothy.
So far as the marriage settlement was
concerned the proposition came from
Mrs. Hopkins, it being her wish, before
she married witness. that he have an
equal share in the estate
Mrs. Hopkins made the proposition
about ten days prior to the marriage.
J.. Witness was at Great Darlington at the
time When witness said he objected
| to a marriage settlement, she. asked
witness if he would release her from the
contract at any time she wished, and he
told her he would.
The marriage settlement was executed
through the agency of Mr.. Stillman.
Witness did not remember whether
Mrs. Hopkins asked Timothy to give her
a schedule of the property in California.
Mr. Searles said he frequently signed
documents without reading the con-
tents, ne trusting entirely TO the infor-
nation submitted verbally by his coun-
sci.
Witness said he had no knowledge of
the marriage settlement contract, but he
had reason to believe that his wife knew
all of the provisions named.
He was certain the contract was in
his favor, as he had nothing to give her
So far as witness knew, Stillman and
Hubbard never submitted a written
statement of the account of the copart-
nership, all information regarding the
property being submitted verbally.
Never knew Of Mrs. Searles keeping a
diary except during the wedding tour.
Mr.. Burley called for those diaries and
the Court ruled them adm issible
Mr.. Burley next produced the will of
Edward +. Searles, of July 16, 1888,
leaving all his property to his wife, the
terms being the same as in her will to
him.
Witness had recollection of but one
codicil TO his wife's will between the
- time of her marrige and death.
In regard to the business affairs Of the
estate, they were suggested by his wife
and the transactions executed by Still
) man.
just previous to the marriage of Mrs.
Hopkins to witness she suggested that
Mr. Stillman visit California TO investi-
gate her affairs.
At this stage of the hearing a letter
written by Mr.. Stillman was read, giving
reasons for not recording the deeds OF
land in Mr.. Searles' name, also the rea-
sons why the marriage settlement con
tract should not be recorded, as it would
;, prompt too much gossip.
. The letter also explained in detail
z Stillman's dealings with Cyrus w. Field,
y in relation to the Washington building,
2 costing over 81, 100000 and the "Mah
and Express" " and concluded with the
statement that Searles' income would
amount to $780, 900.
Q MIR. Stillman reported both to Mrs.
: Searles and to witness that the Califor-
q mia property was in good condition, thus
. allaying any fears that witness and his
wife entertained.
Witness was at Mr. Stillman's house
on Sunday evening to return social
= call.
!, Burley-You didn't go to see him on
q businessp
/ Searles-I don't go to see people on
i business Sunday-never did and never
will.
Mr. Searles' reply caused ripple OF
laughter throughout the court room.
Even Timothy Hopkins fact brightene
2 2 into a broad smile
Mr.. Burley asked the witness at the
d a'tornoon session if he was aware that
}: Stillman 81 Hubbard had voice in the
q kind of securities they could withdraw,
and he replied that he only knew that
they could draw that amount Witness
said that when he signed the supple
+ mental agreement he understood that
: the Great harrington property was eX
empt from the copartnership assets, and
was put in his name to protect # in case
Of accident.
a will of Edward F. Searles, dated
November 90 1887, was introduced. II
LEFT the income Of a sum sufficient to
yield $40, 600 year for the support of his
luo. or and the residue to his wife
Iuc letters from Stillman and Hibbard
to 3. and Mrs. Searles were offered and
occupied the remainder of the afternoon
g Most Of them were Of no particular in
terest. The first dated February IL
IN 1882, from Mr., Stillman when in Cali
fornia estimated Mrs. Searles' property,
al exclusive of the Great Darlington estate
'0 at $50, 000, 600. Referring to her desire
p to give Tim Sherwood Hall and money
at enough TO run it, he says it will require
e, the income Of $500 900 yearly. Tim had
of | L. 4 20, do fn