Los Angeles herald., 1891-09-23

SALEM, Mass, Sept. 22.-The hearing
in the Searles will case opened in the
probate court this morning. William
| w. Dodge testified to drawing up the
will of Mrs. Searles. 1t was read to her
and she signed it, after declaring that it
expressed her wishes. She was to all
appearances of sound mind. Witness
mentioned the drawing of another will,
and the court, on motion, ordered it pro-
duced. Incidental to the request, it was
stated that Timothy Hopkins would not
be conceded the right to appear as the
adopted son OF Mrs. Hopkins-Searles
Mr.. Burleigh proceeded to cross-ex-
anime the witness, his main point be-
ing to prove the fact that the name
Timothy Hopkins" was written in
apparently different ink in the blank
space left for the name. Dodge stated
that his impression was that he left the
space blank until he sot to Menthuen,
as he was not sure whether there was a
middle initial. He had been instructed
to draw will, leaving all the property
to Mr. Searles, and as his duty as a
lawyer required, he inserted a section
regarding the omission of the name OF
Timothy Hopkins. He called the spe-
cial attention OF Mrs. Searles to this,
and told her he could modify it if she
desired, but she stated that it expressed
her wishes, and was executed.
VIM. M. Thornton, another witness to
the will, corroborated the last witness.
Cross examination showed that witness
could not read single word.
VIM. 0. Norris, third witness to the
will, corroborated the previous witness
as to the execution of the two wills. He
also witnessed will for Mr.. Searles,
since the death of Mr.. Searles.
Mr.. Burleigh asked the executors to
produce the will of Mary F. S. Searles,
dated November Is, 1887. Judge Har-
mon ruled that tne executors should
produce the will. Mr.. Burleigh stated
that the position OF the contestants was:
First, there is no sufficient testation of
the will second, the will was procured
by undue influence and fraud, on the
part of Edward w. Searles and some
confederate, and third, the testatrix
was not of sound and disposing mind at
the time the will was made.
Mr.. Burleigh then called Edward F.
Searles to the stand. In the afternoon
session the examination OF Searles was
Hopkins in San Francisco in March,
introduction to look over her house. He
met her several times, going on excur-
sions into the country twice with her
and her daughter-in-law.
He thea detailed his acquaintance and
visits to Mrs. Hopkins. The first prop
osition of the marriage of the two came
from Mrs. Hopkins in New York in the
fall of 1888. He did not assent to it for
year, but in December, 1884, he enter
tanned the proposal. He knew at the
time that Mrs. Hopkins was born in
1920 and was q years his senior. He
had never previously proposed marriage
to any one. He could not we'll help
knowing that Mrs. Hopkins was q lady
of large means. He delayed the propo-
sitfon OF marriage to give her chance
to be sure she was satisfied, and after he
entertained it delayed marriage for three
years.
In the spring of 1886 he went to Flori-
da as the guest of Mrs. Hopkins in her
private car. She was accompanied by
Miss Cass. of Great Darlington. Wit
ness from 1885 to 1887 was superintend-
ing the building of Mrs. Hopkins house
at Great Darlington. He had under
stood that her son Timothy, in connec-
tion with the railroad people, managed
her affairs. He had been told by Mrs.
. Hopkins that Timothy had objected to
the marriage, but she cherished no ill
will toward him for it. The agreement
of marriage was entered into in Septem-
Der 1887 on witnesses part because he
greatly admired her.
In reply to question he said he
married her for AL she had, both love
and money, but would never have mar
ried her for money alone. He did not
know of the will made the day of their
marriage, November s, 1887, until after
her death.
A marriage contract made at the same
time was also put in, conveying by Mrs.
Hopkins to 7. E. Stillman, trustee, for
the benefit of Edward F. Searles, after
marriage, her mansion in San Francisco,
improved and unimproved land in Sac
ramento, mountain lands, the Summit
soda springs. California, redwood and
timber lands on the Coast range, two
parcels of quarry lands, the Great Bar
rington property and four lots on Ninth
street, New York. This contract was
cancelled June 16, 1888.
The hearing was adjourned to tomor-