Los Angeles herald., 1891-10-22
Edward F. Searles' Faith in
His Aged ConsOrt.
He Did Not Question Her Mo-
tives in Anything.
But He Objected to a Marriage Set
Element After the English Plan.
1t Looked Too Much Like Buying 9
Husband = Interesting Testimony
Given at the Hearing of the
VIII Contest.
ssOCsated Press Dispatches.

Associated Press Dispatches
SALEM, Mass, Oct. 21.-The hearing
of the Searles will case was resumed
this morning, with Edward F. Searles
on the stand. L. s. Dabney appeared
for the first time with counsel for the
will. and Russell ]. Wilson, OF San
Francisco, joined counsel for contestants.
At the opening, Burleigh, for the con-
testants, asked if Searles knew why
Timothy Hopkins had not been notified
before November 9th, of the proposed
marriage, and he replied that he never
dictated to Mrs. Hopkins anything in
regard to her son. He first heard of the
marriage settlement from Mrs. Hop
kins. Witness objected to mar
riage settlement after the English
style, as it looked too much like buying
a husband. Witness did not read the
paper when it was signed. He was told
that it was a marriage settlement, but
knew it could not impose any giving
by him to her, as he had nothing in
particular to give by marriage settle
ment. His wife probably knew it's con-
tents, as she had caused it to be made.
He did not know whether there had
been anything paid as compensation for
trustees under this settlement. Wit
ness never opened letter addressed to
his wife before their marriage, and none
without her permission since.
Mr.. Burleigh here called for the
diaries kept by Mrs. Searles while in
Europe.
Mr.. Stillman came to Methuen on
their return from Europe, and saw Mrs.
Searles on business matters. AT the
time of their marriage witness heard
Mrs. Hopkins speak of peril to her
property, and wished Stillman to go to
California and look the matter up. His
report after returning was that the
property was in good shape. The first
suggestion of copartnership came from
Stillman at the suggestion of Mrs.
Searles, to the effect that she would
like some arrangement made to manage
her business. Witness did not read the
copartnership papers, as he had conf
dence in the party that drew them. His
wife never, to his knowledge,
took independent advice in re-
gard to the matter. Witness knew some
California property had been decided to
him, the deeds running direct from his
wife, although unrecorded. Deeds of
the same property were IN existence.
Witness did not understand that the
lawyers were to have $65,000 year In
any event, but they were to have 10 per
cent. of the income. He understood
that 10 per cent for the attorneys, oi
both assets and income of the partner
ship, were for their services.
Mr.. Burleigh put in the will OF Ed
ward T. Searies, made on the same day
as that of his wife, now in contest
dated July 10th. 1t left all his property
to his wife. All the real estate
witness stated, was in his name, but thu
deeds were unrecorded. He had not at
tempted to transfer them, and made nc
papers or declarations of trust in regard
to them since his wife's death, and the
matter had not been discussed in his
presence. He did not know of his wife
signing more than one codicil to the vii
after marriage, and he knew of no other
wills than those shown. Itwas suggested
before they left for Europe that the
deeds be made to witness. He did moi
make the suggestion, and did not know
who did. The papers were executed be
fore they left, as Mr.. Stillman was to &c
to California to look after the property
A letter received at Nice with th
deeds was produced. The letter gave a
the reason for making the deeds, tina
the title was in Still man and the in
sured title was not. He had repue
nance to recording the marriage settle
Tnant