Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1891-10-22
Hopkins WILL CASE
The Great Suit Once More in
Progress at Salem.
sEARLEs AGAIN ON THE STAND
He Didn't Want People to Think He Was
Bought for a Husband.

| nc NeNer DlO Business on sunday
Even Tim Hopkins Smiled-VaIue OF
Mrs. Hopkins Standing Room
Only at the Trial.
SALEM, Mass, Oct. 22.-Standing room
was at premium in the Probate Court
yesterday, the occasion being the re-
sumption of the Hopkins-Searles will
contest. Edward F. Searles was called
to the stand, and Mr.. Burley after calling
attention to numerous transfers of per-
sonal property from Mrs. Searles to
St1lIman and subsequently to Searles,
began rigid cross-examination.
Searles, in reply to question as to the
time of the marriage agreement, stated
it was in October, 1888.
Searles was unable to tell why Timothy
Hopkins was not informed of the mar
rage day, as the matter was left en- tire "
with Mrs. Hopkins.
Witness testified he did not suggest to
Mrs Hopkins that it would be we'll to
notify Timothy.
SO far as the marriage settlement was
conce rned the proposition came from
Mrs Hopkins, it being her wish, Def ore
She married witness. that he have an
equal share in the estate
Mrs Hopkins made the proposition
about ten days prior to the marriage.
| w ACi tSS was 6reaU harrington at the
time When witness said he objected
to 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.
ha 1x1 o;c
comments without reading the con-
tents, he 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 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 F. 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
Stillman's dealings with Cyrus w. Field
in relation to the Washington building,
costing over So, 100000 and the mail
and Express" and concluded with the
statement that Searles' income would
amount to 100000.
| Mr.. Stillman reported both to Mrs
Searles and to witness that the Califor-
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 a social
call.
Burley-You didn't go to see him on
business?
Searles-I don't go to see people on
business Sunday-never did and never
will.
Mr.. Searles' reply caused ripple of
laughter throughout the court room.
Even Timothy Hopkins fact frightened
into broad smile.
| Mr. RuT1av ba xry;+,,oe.
afternoon session if he was aware that
Stillman & Hubbard had voice in the
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 Darlington property was ex-
empt from the copartne rship assets, and
was put in his name to protect 1t in case
of accident.
A will of Edward F. Sear1es, dated
November %, 1887, was introduced. 1t
| lett the income of a sum sufficient to
yield $40, 900 year for the support of his
mother and the residue to his wife.
The letters from Stillman and Hubbard
to MIR. and Mrs. Searles were offered and
occupied the remainder of the afternoon.
Most of them were of no particular in
| terest. The first dated February II,
| 1882, from Mr.. Stillman when in Cali
forn:a, estimated Mrs. Searles' property,
exclusive of the Great Darlington estate
at 500, 600, OOO Referring to her desire
to give Tim Sherwood Hall and money
| enough to run it, he says it will require
the income of $500,O00 yearly. Tim had
honestly endeavored to do his best for
her, and any mistakes had been due to
| youth.
On November 18, 1887, he wrote that
he had drawn new will for Mrs.
Searles, which had been rendered neces-
sary by changed condition of affairs.
On April Is, 1888, Stillman wrote that
the property was OF more value than he
first thought. He had to get rid of her
| interest i'll the ''Mail and Express" and
they ought to thank Providence that it
| raised up men with more money than
brains to relieve them of their bad in
vestmeuts.
Attempted Murder and Suicide.
NEW YORK, Oct. 22.-Cassius Morey,
a n xha for hA