Evening journal., 1891-09-24
THE ESEARLES ESSTRUGGLE.
Widow Hopkins Little SIS :
600 Gift to Her Lover.
MILLIONS BEFORE THE MARRIAGE

4
ifestations for Amusement only.
SALEM Mass, Sept 24-rwo important
points were brought out In the Searlea
will contest dnrlNg the day. They were,
first, the formation Of corporation or a
trust whereby the control Of the Southern
Pacific railway was TO be retained in tho
possession Of the present interests and
second, as bearing upon the question Of
Searles' alleged undue influence over bis
aged wife, the fact that table tipping,
| Christian science and similar aids to cred.
ulity were introduced into the household
soon after the marriage TO say that these
/ developments caused sensation in the
crowded courtroom would be very con
servative statement Il was also evident
that Mr. Searles, who was on the stand all
day, was Disconnected aud depressed
| searles on the Rack.
From the beginning to the end Of the
session he was subjected to a merciless lot
OF questions MIR Seares' counsel Colonel
Solomon Lincoln, began proceedings by
asking that the most important part OK
the marriage contract, the annulment, ba
read TO the court. He said that had been
omitted. Mr. Burley then read It and ID
Eappeared that the the contract was an.
hnulled by mutual consent on July i6, 1883,
less than year after its signature. but on
the same date as the execution OF the will
now in dispute.
Their Wedding journey.
| Mr. Searles resumed the stand and was
questioned about his wedding trip. He
said he and his wife went to Europe Nov.
%, 1887, on a wedding tour. Previous to
starting on the wedding tour Mrs. Searles
secured the funds, about $4,000 The
trip was for six mDnths and included wit
ness his wife, lady's maid. Martha Ep-
ping, and Rev. DIR. Clapp, his wife and
daughter. Then Lawyer Burley sprung
The names Of Spiritualist DR.. slade and
Christian Scientist Bolles upon the wit
ness and asked II these gentlemen accom-
panied him on his wedding journey
Mo- said the witness 1--WE did not
meet any clairvoyants on our trip nor
after our trip, nor did we meet Dr.
Bolles on that trip but later / think he
called himself a Christian scientist
don't think he pretends skill in curing
diseases met him a Great Darlington,
where he made social cailn
spirItuallStic Manifestations
3 DO you reco&ect any spiritualist ait.
tings by Mr.. Bolles or his wife, or both Of
} ! themr
''No, sir, do not. There was sugges-
tion, recollect, by some one Of trying 10
tip the tables. don't reconect at whose
suggestion. It was tried few times as a
matter Of amusement only.
searles' Alleged scheming.
The counsel for the disinherited son then
directed their energies TO showing that
even before the widow Of Mark Hopkins
married the decorator Of her house he was
introducing to her two New York lawyers
who are executors Of her will, Thomas r.
Stillman and Thomas II. Hubbard, whose
business it was TO secure from her a
power Of attorney giving them control OF
her vast estates and that this authority
was used while she was lying on her death
bed and within forty-eight hours Of her
death TO dispose Of her property, so that
there would be no possibility Of conveying
IL to her son - ..Eri- Sss.4ss r. 49,,
The Copartnership AFFAIR. h
Mr.. Burley asked. DO yon claim any
title 70 any property OF Mrs. Hopkins ex-
cept under the will now before the court
for probaten
Witness replied: Il suppose my interest
In the copartnership would antedate the
viii After my marriage to Mrs Hopkins
several tracts Of lands were transferred to
me by my wife The property included
the estate and palace in Great Darlington
and the Hopkins mansion and land in san
Francisco" Witness said that he under
stood that the marriage contract gave him
the property named as well as other valu-
able interests. The suggestion Of a naar-
rlage coutraet was made by Mrs. Hopkins.
The details Of the Searles Stillman ana
Hubbard copartnership proved a very in
teresting feature, especially when it was
admitted by Searles that be had the han
ding Of over 100000 year TO do with as
he pleased. The assets Of the copartner-
ship were 70 BE- DIVIDED 50 that Mr.. aad
Mrs. Searles received each As per cent.
and Stillman and Hubbard each 5 per
| cent. Il was estimated that the first two
should every year receive S292, 900 each.
and the other two So, 600 each. Whenever
the assets did not amount TO so much
some property should be sold, so as to
make up the amount. Mr.. and Mrs.
Searles were not TO spend any time on rbe
! business, but Hubbard and Stillman
should, il necessary, spend all their time
| on the work OF the copartuership. All the
property Of Mrs. Searles was turned over
to the copartnership
searles Handled the Cash.
Searles admitted that he did as he liked
4
the copartnership profits, which amounted
1 TO nearly $500,000 He refused to produce
his check books and Burley accused him
Of trying TO suppress the truth. just be-
fore the court adjourned the most inter
esting feature was developed. A docu-
ment was unearthed showing that Mrs.
Hopkins had been led to turn over Sls.-
DOO,000 worth of securities to the new CO
partnership concern, and it was the in
come from these securities which supplied
Mr.. Searles with more than $500, ,OO0 per
annum, and gave S32. 500 annually to
Messrs. Stillman & Hubbard.
Gave Him $1,000, 900 Before Marriage.
Searles said he did not remembxn when
bis wife executed the document. 1t was
Also shown that before sheg married him
Mrs Hopkins turned over to Searles
u, 10000 as a gift. Searles testified that
he thought she was giving him half her
estate.
did you ever tell it where it was liablo
20 reach the ears Of Mr.. Timothy Hop
| kinsy" he was asked.
| Il don't think that l did -
HE was there at Merhuen and you
never told him that his mother had been
| giving you millions of her property"
"No, sir, " wish emphasis.
Mr.. Searles had no excuse to offer for bis
neglect to inform young Mr. Hopkins
rhm xxr..sh-