The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-10-22
SEARLES WILL CASE.
Mrs. Hopkins Relief Again in
the Witness Box.
FAT FEES OF THE LAWYERS.
Letters and Wills I'm Evidence-Tim's In.
ment-sIrs. searles Diary Asked For.

SALEM, Mass, Oct 21-The hearing in the
viii case was resumed this morning with Ed
ward +. Searles on the stand. l. S. Dabney ap-
peGred for the first time with counsel for the
will. and Russell J. Wilson, of San Francisco,
joined the counsel for contestants. At the
opening, Burley, for the contestants, asked IL
searles knew why Timothy Hopkins had not
been notified before November of the proposed
marriage, and he replied that he never
dictated to Mrs. Hopkins anything with
regard to her son. He first heard
OF the marriage settlement from Mrs.
Hopkins. Witness objected to a marriage settle
ment after the English style, as it looked too
much like buying husband. Witness did not
read the paper when it was signed. He was
told it was a marriage settlement, but knew 1t
should not impose any giving by him to her, as
he had nothing in particular to give by mar
rage settlement His wife probably knew its
contents, as she had caused it to be made. He
did not know whether there had been ANYTHING
paid as compensation for trustee under this
marriage settlement. Witness had never opened
letter addressed to his wife before marriage,
and none without her permission since.
Mr.. Burley here called for the diaries kept by
Mrs. Searles while in Europe.
Witness continued: Mr.. Stillman came to
Methuen on his return and saw Mrs. Searles on
business matters. At the time of the marriage
witness heard Mrs. Hopkins speak of the peril
of her property, and wished StlIlman to go 70
California and look the matter up. His report
after his return was that the property was In
good shape. The first suggestion of co-part-
nership came from Stillman at the suggestion
OF Mrs. Searles, to the effect that she would like
some arrangement made to manage her bust
ness. Witness did not read the eo-partnership
papers, as he had confidence in the party that
drew them. His wife never, TO his knowledge,
took independents advice with regard to the mat
for k.,ax fk.a%S - fba[
property had been decided to him, the deeds
running direct from his wife. Although I'M
recorded, the deeds of some of the property were
In existence. Witness did not understand that
the lawyers were to have $4,000 a year in
any event, but they were to have 10
per cent. of the income. He understood that
the 10 per cent. for the attorneys, of both the
assets and income of the partnership, were for
their services.
Mr.. Burley put in the will OF Edward T.
Searles, made on the same date as that of his
wife NOW in contest, on July l6 1t LETT all
his property to his wife.
The real estate, witness stated, was in his
name, but the deeds were unrecorded He had
not attempted TO transfer them, and made no
papers or declarations 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 cootcil to the will after the
marriage, and no other wills than those shown.
1t was suggested before they left for Europe that
the deeds be made to witness. He did not make
the suggestions, and did not know who did The
papers were executed before they left, and Mr..
Stiilman was to go to California to look up the
property. letter received at Nice with the
deeds was produced. He had repugnance to
recording the marriage settlement
At the afternoon session, Mr.. Burley asked wit
ness If be was aware that stillman and Hubbard
had voice in the kind of securities which they
could withdraw. He replied that he only knew
they could draw that amount. Witness had the
name left off the Office door to relieve him from
large number of applicants Of one
kind and another, as he was not to be active
partner, Mrs. Searles wishing him to attend to
domestic affairs. When he signed the supple
mental agreement he understood that the Great
Darlington property was exempt from co-part-
nership assets and put in his name TO protect in
case of accident.
The will Of Edward Searles, dated November
q, 1887, was introduced. 1t left an income of
sum sufficient to yield $10, 900 per year for the
support of his mother, and the residue to his
wife. The trustees and executors were his wife,
Stillman and T. Fl. Hubbard. Letters from
stillman and Hubbard to Mr.. and Mrs.
Searles were here offered and oc-
cupied the remainder of the afternoon.
Most of them were of no particular interest. The
first was dated February II, 1888, from Mr.. Still
man, in California He estimated Mrs Searies'
property, exclusive of the GreatBarrington estate,
at $50, 100000, counting tbs Indebtedness OF the
Western Development Company and the Pacific
Improvement Company at face value. Refer
ring to the desire of Tim TO keep up Sherwood
Hall, and desiring money enough to run
it, he says it will require an income
of $4,000 yearly. Tim had honestly
endeavored to do the best for her, and any mis-
takes had been due to his youth and inexperi-
ence. On November Is, 1887, he wrote that he
had drawn q new will for Mrs. Searles, which
had been rendered necessary by the change of
affairs. In April, 1SSs, Stillman writes that the
property is of more value than he at first
thought, and with ordinary wise management
would give a larger income than she could
spend, and amass property double her estimate.