The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-04-02
WAS SHE IN HIS POWERi
DIR. ROBINSON DEFENDS HIS LEGACY
FROM THE WIDOW YAN EMBER6.
Mrs. Barkeriow contradicts His Testiaosy,
snd Says the Widow Declared She Couid
Set No Accountlnx iron the Doctor.

Mrs. Barkeriow contradicts His Testinoay.
and Says the Widow Declared She Couia
Get No Accountinx iron the Doctor.
Surrogate 8. d. Stephens in stapleton. g l..
yesterday afternoon continued to hear evil
dence In the contest Of the will OF Mrs. Livinia
G. Van Emberg. the widow who died ut the
homo OF Dr. Samuel A. Robinson at West New
Brighton in January last. The contestants
are Alexander W. Farrell OF this city. nephew
Of the deceased. and Sherman W. Nevis. O
lawyer Of this city. They allege undue influ-
ence and restraint on the part OF the
sole executor OF the will. DR.. Robinson.
Besides being executor. he is named as resid-
uary legatee. Tho estate Is worth 5000. 900.
The document is dated July 10. 1887. and o
codicil to the will was executed July 10. 1883.
DR.. Robinson was the first witness called.
He Is about 90 years old and widower. He
said that he did not know of Mrs. Van Emberg
having made her will until several days aftor
1t had been executed and denied having sent
lawyers to Mrs. Van EmberR to draw up the
document.
Mrs. Mary NJ. Barkerlow. who keeps board
ing house at New Brighton and with whom
Mrs.. Van Emberg had lived from Feb. %. 1887.
to March rs. 1889. testified that she had been
on intimate terms with Mrs. Van EmberG
while living at her house. She said that Dr.
Robinson had called almost daily to see Mrs.
Van Embers. and that he made frequent calls
after o'clock In the morning. While Mrs.
Van Emberg was an invalid. her case was not
such as to require duly visits OF q physician.
On one occasion DR.. Robinson asked the wit
ness to give him night key. that he might
call without disturbing the household. This
she had refused to do. She also contradicted
DIR. Robinson's statement concerning his
knowledge OF tho will. She said positively
that the day when Mrs. Van Embercs will had
been drawn. DR.. Robinson told her Of the fact
and requested her to mako note Of the oc;
never. seen Mrs Van Embere's mind more
clsar than on that day =.
several different times told her that DR.. Rob:
frequently asked him for an accounting Of her
rs oRS r3%
had told her that DR. Robinson had been en-
ost the Witness VII APRIL .sr lie ye%ns
body had been in w
It and buried IL the
T Visits to grave ~a rsqnest 81 Reb
Mrs Ha EmbSr aEoh s. 70 0 e
Ing ii there until the tins Of her death; The
sSe With he viii she hsd
was conducting her affairs. She said that pr.
w xfs Mrs. Van GmPerg Was one serioasis
and 1t was expected that she would
die she requested the witness to send for her
sister in law. Mrs. Culver. resident Of Utica.
N. Y. who was to take charge OF all her per-
eonai effects. When DR.. Robinson learned OF
what had been done he became enraged ami
very angry He told the witness that in the
event OF the death of the tsstatrix no would
take charge Of all her belongings Mrs. Van
Emberg had frequently expressed desire to
live In New York. but DR.. Robinson told her
that II she removed 10 New York she could not
1.-Two ty-foqI hours
Miss Helen Bertha Bradley a nurse. who
graduated from Bellevue in 1870. testified that
on Feb Is. 1888. while she was In charge OF
the City Mission. she had an interview, with
Pr Robins9n who wn5tsd her e take charge
He S ss b h the ad xSm he
properly. and that as she had no near rela-
there would be trouble over the dis
position OF her estate. He knew that she
was an accurate observer OF oil that occurred
and that she would make q good witness In
court. When she declined to take charge Of
the case. DR.. Robinson lett IN an angry frame
OF mind. She subsequently had another inter-
view with DR.. Robinson while she was engaged
tn nurse Henry Garrett In Baltimore. brother
OF Robert Garrett. He wanted her to become
his Office clerk. which offer she also refused.
The hearing was adjourned until April IA.