The record-union., 1891-10-22
SEARLES WILL CONTEST.
THE LEGAL BATTLE RESUMED AT
SALEM, MASS.
Edward F. Searles Testiffes Concern
ing the Marriage settlement
and the Copartnership.
Special to the RECoRD-US1oS.

SALEM (NIass.), Oct. 21.-The hearing of
the Searles will case was resumed this
morning with Edward f. 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
the counsel for contestants.
At the opening Burley, for contest
ants, asked Mr.. Searles if he knew why
Timothy Hopkins had not been notified
before November 5th Of the proposed
marriage. He replied that he never die
tated to Mrs. Hopkins anything in re-
gard 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 a husband. Wit
ness did not read the paper when it was
signed. He was told that it was mar
riage settlement, but knew it could not
impose any giving by him to her, as he
had nothing in particular to give by a
marriage settlement. His wife probably
knew It's contents, as she had caused it to
be made, He did not know whether
there had been anything paid as compen-
satIon for trustee under this marriage
settlement. Witness never opened let
ters addressed to his wife before mar
rlage and none without her permission
since.
MIR. Burley here called for the diaries
kept by Mrs. Searles while in Europe.
Mr. Stllman came to Methuen on their
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 Still
man to go to California to look the matter
up. his report after returning was that
the property was in good shape
The first suggestion Of c0partnership
came from Stlllman, at the suggestion of
Mrs. Searles, to the effect that she would
ike some arrangement made to manage
her business. Witness did not read the
copartnership papers, as he had conf
dence in the party who drew them. His
wife never 10 his knowledge took indie
pendent advice in regard to the matter.
Witness knew that some California prop
erty had been decided to him. the deeds
running direct from his wife. although
unrecorded deeds of the same property
were IN existence. Witness did not un-
Cerstand that the lawyers were to have
S0o,CUO year IN any event, but they were
to have ten per cent. of the income. He
understood that ten per cent. for the at
torneys of both assets and income of the
partnership were for their services.
Mr.. Burley put in the will of Edward
+. Searles, made on the same date as that
of his wife, now in contest, on July 10th.
1t left all his property to his wife,
All the real estate, witness stated. was
IN his name, but the deeds were unre-
corded. He had not attempted to trans
fer and made no papers or declarations of
trust in regard to them since his wife's
death, and the matter had not been dis
cuSsed IN his presence. He did not know
OF his wife signing more than one codicil
to the will after marriage, and there were
no other wills than those shown 1t was
suggested before they left for Europe
that deeds be made to witness He did
not make the suggestion, and did not
know who did. The papers were ex-
ecuted before they left, as Mr.. Stillman
was TO go to California to look up the
property.
4 letter received at Nice with deeds
was produced. The letter gave as the
reason for making the deeds that the
title was in Stillman's name, and the in
sured title was not. He had a re-
pagnance to recording the marriage set
tlement.
At the afternoon session Mr. Burlev
asked witness If he was aware that Still
man and Hubbard had a voice in the
kind of securities which they could with
draw. He replied that he knew they
could draw that amount. Witness had
his name left OFT the Office door TO relieve
him from large number of applicants of
one kind and another, as he was not to be
an active partner, Mrs. Searles wishing
him to attend to domestic affairs. When
he signed the supplemental agreement he
understood the Great Darlington estate
was exempt from the co-partnership
assets, and put in his name TO protect Il
in case Of accident.
The will OF Edward Searles. dated
November %, 1887, was introduced. 1t
left the income OF sum sufficient to
yield $4,000 per year for the support of
his mother, and the residue to his wife
The trustees and executors were his wife
Stillman and L. III. Hubbard.
Letters from Stillman and Hubbard
and MIR. and Mrs. Searles We're barn
offered, and occupied the remainder of
the afternoon. Most of them were of no
particular interest. The first, dated Feb
ruary l6, lSSS, from Mr.. Stillman in Cali
fornia, estimated Mrs. Searles' proDertv
exclusive of the Great Darlington estate
~ S50,000, Geo, counting the Indebtedness
of the Western Development COMPANY
and Pacific Improvement Company at
l>Se value. November Is, 1887, he writes
that he had drawn a new Will for Mrs
Searlcs, which had been rendered neces-
sary by change OF affairs. April Is.
1888, Stillman writes that the property
was OF more value than he at first
thought. and with ordinary wise man
agement would give larger income
than she could spend and amass prop
erty donhle her estimate.