The morning call., 1891-09-23
TWO WILLS.
The Contest Oyer the Estate
Of Mrs. SearleS.
Statement Of The Grounds Upon Which
the Contestants Rest.
Testimony of The RespOndent-HlS ACquailt-
alCe With and Visits 10 Mrs. Hopkins.
The First Proposition of Marriage.
sIecial to THE MORNING CALI

SALEM Mass.(, Sept. 22-The hearing in
the Searles will 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 de-
clarIng that it expressed her wishes. She
was. to all appearances. of sound mind. The
witness mentioned drawing another will,
and the Court. on motion, ordered it to be
produced. Incidental to the request it was
stated that Timothy Hopkins would not be
conceded the right to appear as an adopted
son.
Burleigh proceeded to cross-examine the
witness, his main point being 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
until he got to Methuen, rs he was not sure
whether there was middle initial. He had
been instructed to draw the will leaving all
the property TO Searles, ana as his duty as
lawyer required he inserted the section re-
garding the omission Of the name of Timo-
thy Hopkins. He called the special atten-
ti0n Of Mrs. Searles to this, and told her he
could modify it if she desired, but she stated
1t expressed her wishes and it was exc uted.
William NJ. Thornton, another witness to
the will cOrrobOrated the last witness. The
crOSs-aXamination showed that the witness
could not read single word.
William o. Norris. third witness to the
will, corroborated the previous witness as
to the execution of the two wills. He also
4
death of Mrs. Searles.
Mr.. Burlegh asked the executors to pro-
duce the will of Mary F. S. Searles, dated
November, 1887.
Judge Harmon ruled that the executors
must produce the will.
Mr.. Bureigh stated that the position of
the contestants was: First, there is no suffi-
clent altestation of tie will; second, the
will was procured by undue influence and
fraud on the part of Edward W. Searles and
some confederates; and, third, the ties tatrx
was not of sound and disposing mind at the
time the will was made.
Mr.. Burleigh then called Edward F.
Senrles to the witness-stand. He first met
Mrs. Hopkins in San Francisco in March,
lSS3 going to her house with letter of in
PRODUCTION TO look over her house; he met
her several times, going on excursions into
the country twice with her and her daugh-
ter-in-law. He then detailed his acQuaint-
ance with and visits to Mrs. Hopkins. The
first proposition Of marriage between the
TWO came from Mrs. Hopkins in New
York in the fall Of 1888. lie did not
assent to it for a year. but in December,
1884, he entertained the proposition; he
knew at the time that Mrs. HOPKINS was
u In Nd ttua +u
senior: he had never previously proposed
marriage to any one; he could not we'll
help knowing that Mrs. Hopkins was a
lady of large means he delayed the propo-
sition of marriage to give her a chance to be
sure she was satisfied aud after he enter
tanned it he delayed the wedding for three
wears. In the spring Of 1856 he went to
Florida as a guest of Mrs. Hopkins in her
private car; she was accompanied by Miss
Cass OF Great Darlington; witness, from
1885 to 1887, was experimenting the build
ing of Mrs. Hopkins house at Great Bar
rington. He had understood that her son,
Timothy, in connection 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-wlll toward him
for it; the agreement of marriage was en-
tered into in September, 1887 on the wit
ness part, because he greatly admired her
In reply 10 a question, he said he married
her for all she had, botn love and money;
but should have never married her for
money alone. He did not know of the will
made the day of the marriage, November 3,
1887, until after her death, but did not think
it was Intentionally made behind his back
A marriage contract made at the same time
was also put in, conveying by Mrs. Hopkins
to r. L. Stilmqn, trustee, for the benefit of
Edward f. Searles. after the marriage, the
mansion in San Francisco, improved and
unimproved land in Sacramento, mountain
lands in Summit County and soda springs,
California; redwood and timber lands on
the Coast Range; two parcels of quarry
lands; the Great harrington property and
four lots on Ninth street, New York. This
contract was cancelled June 16, 1883. The
hearing was adjourned to tomorrow.