The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-10-22


SALEM, Mass, Oct. 21.-The hearing in
the Searles will case was resumed this
morning with Edward T. Searles on the
stand. l.. S. Dabney appeared for the first
time with counsel for the will, and Russell
j. Wilson, of San Francisco, joined counsel
for the contestants. At the opening Bur
ley, for contestants, asked if S. aries knew
why Timothy Hopkins had not been noti-
hed before November of the proposed mar
riage, and he replied he never dictated to
Mrs. Hopkins anything in regard 10 her
sen. He first heard of the marriage settle
ment from Mrs. Hopkins. Witness OBJ
jected to a marriage settlement after the
English style as it looked too much like
buying q husband. Witness did not read
the paper when it was signed. He was
told That IL was marriage settlement, but
knew II should not impose any giving by
him to her, as he had nothing in particular
TO give by a marriage settlement His
vile probably knew its contents, as she
had caused ii to be made. He did not
know whether there had been anything
paid as compensation for the trustee under
this settlement Witness never opened a
letter addressed to his wife before marri-
age and none without her permission since
MIR. Burley here called for the diaries kept
by Mrs. Searles while in Europe
Mr.. Stillman came to Methveu on his
return and saw Mrs. Searles on business
matters. At the time of the marriage,
witness heard Mrs. Hopkins speak of the
peril to her property and wished Stillman
TO go 10 California to look the matter up.
His report after his return was the prop
erty was in good shape. The first sugges-
ton of copartnership came from Stillman
at the suggestion of Mrs. Searles, to the
effect that she would like some arrange
ment made to manage her business. Wit
ness didn't read the copartner5hip papers
as he had confidence in the party thar
drew them. His wife never, to his knowl-
edge took independent advice in regard to
the matter. Witness knew some Cal
to him, the deeds running di-
rect from his wife, although
unrecoyered deeds of the same property
were in evidence. Witness die not under
stand the lawyers were to have SIS. COO a
year in any event. but they were to have
~ per cent. of the income. He understood
the 10 per cent. for the attorneys of both
assets and income of the partnership was
for their services.
MIR. Burley put in the will of Edward F.
Searles, made on the same date as that of
his wife, NOW in Contest) July IL. 1t left
all his property to his wife. All the real
estate, witness stated, was in his name,
but the deeds were unrecorded He had
not attempted to transfer them and had
made no papers or declaration of
trust in regard to them since his
wifes death and the matter had not
been discussed in his presence
He did not know of his wife signing more
than one codicil to her will afte marriage
and no other wills than those shown. IL
was uggested before they left for Europe
that deeds be made to witness. He did not
make the suggestions and did not know
who did. The papers were executed be-
fore they lett, as Mr.. Stillman was to go to
California to look up property A letter
received at Nice with the deeds was pro
duced. The letter gave as the reason for
making the deeds as the title was in Still
man and the insured title was not, he had
a repugnance TO recording the marriage
settlement.
At the afternoon session Burnley asked
witness if he was aware Stillman q Hub