Smyrna times., 1889-08-14
The Maybrick Trial.

The Maybrick murder trial has tax
en- rank with the most remarkable poi-
sOning cases in the records of the Eng
llsh courts. The evidence the wretch
ed woman who was charged with kill
ing her sick husband by administering
arsenic with the medicines and nour-
lshment was very strong. Mr.. May
bricks death was sudden and unexpect-
ed, and the pOst-mOrtem examination
disclosed the presence of arsenic in
large quantities. There had been fire.
quent quarrels between husband and
wife, and the wOman's unfaithfulness
was proved by incriminating cores
pOndence and direct testimony. A
motive was thus furnished for the
alleged crime in her desire to be re-
leased from marital bonds which had
become distasteful to her. AS she
was suspected by her husbands broth
ers OF entertaining designs against life,
she had been watched by physicians,
nurses and servants, and nearly every
inmate of the house had something to
say against her A hOusemaid inter
cepted letter which she wrote to her
paramour. The nurse saw her stealth
lily mixing one of the last doses taken
by Mr.. Maybrick. An analyst testified
that spots found on her dressing gown.
handkerchiefs, aprons, and the cover
OF n6r rdresslng-rOOm stand were arsenic
stains. HOusemaids related her curl
Gus habit of soaking 1ly-paper in her
room. Every one in the house seemed
TO have distrusted her and to have been
commissioned to spy out all her ways,
and TO keep her apart from her husband.
With unmistakeabe traces of arsenic
in the husbands body after an mex
plicable death, and also in nourishment
gwen to him from her hand and in her
own clothing and dressing, the
prosecution apparently had an easy
task IN convincing the jury of her
guilt
The defence as conducted by Sir
Charles Russell was skilful and plausi.
Bile. Mr. Maybrick was shown to be
an habitual arsenic-eater. When sick
at hotel in Norfolk, Va, he had re-
peatedly sent to a drug store for doses
OF arsenic. American witnesses testi-
ned that he was in the habit of taking
the drug for malarial disorders as far
back as 1877. He had been seen to put
arsenic powders in beef tea-the same
nOurishment which his wife was accus-
ed OF tampering with. A London
druggist had frequently provided him
with ''pick-me-ups" in which arsenic
was an ingredient. An ex-Mavor of
Liverpool repeated in court a CONVEX
sation in which Mr.. Maybrck had ad-
mitted two months before his death
that he was in the habit of taking moi
sOnOus remedies habitually. All these
details created reasonable grounds for
the presumption that the arsenic found
in his body had been sclfadministered
especially when experts asserted that
months would be required for its elimi-
nation from the system If taken only
twice in small quantities. At the same
time the defence produced medical
testimony to the effect that death had
not resulted from arsenic, but from
natural causes, thereby cOunteracting
the expert evidence for the prosecution.
The delicate task of explaining away
the arsenic-stains on Mrs. MAVERICKS IS
clothing and toilet stand and Ofaccount-
ing for the mysterious powder which
she administered with the beef tea still
remained. Sir Charles Russell obtain
ed permission from the court to intro
duce written statement read by the
prisoner herself In this she admitted
having habitually used a face-wash
containing arsenic, and having bought
and soaked fly papers in order to get a
substitute for favorite American pre-
scriptiOn.
The Judges charge was favorable to
the defence, but the jury brought in a
verdict Of guilty A strong effort is
being made to save her from the gal
lows.