New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-08-07
THE MAVERICK TRIAL.

with the most remarkable poisoning cases IN
the records of the English courts The evil
dence against the wretched woman VINO was
charged with killing her sick husband by ad-
ministering arsenic with the medicines ana
nourisbment was very strong Mr.. Maybrlcks
death was sudden and unexpected, and the post
nortem examination disclosed the presence OF
arsenic in large quantities. There had been
freouent oIarrels between husband and wife,
and the womans uafaithfulness was proved by
incrminating correspondence and direct teSti-
,,orv motive was thus furnished for the
ALLEGED crime in her desire to be released from
marital bonds which had become dlstasteful
70 her As she was suspected by her husbands
brotbcrs Of entertaining designs against his
life. she had been watched by physicians, nurses
and servants and nearly every inmate OF the
bouse had something to say against her. n
bousemad intercepted letter which she wrote
IN her paiamour The nurse saw her stealthly
mixing one Of the last doses taken by MIR May
brick. An analyst testified that spots found on
her dressing gown, handkerchiefs aprons, and
tbe cover of her dressing room stand were
arsenic stains. Housemaids related her curious
habit of soaking fly-papers in her room. Every
ono 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 hlS-
hand. With unmstakable traces OF arsenic III
the husbands body after an ineXphcable death
and also in nourishment given to him from her
hand and in her own clothing and dressing
room. the prosecution apparently had ar easy
task in convincing the jury of her guilt.
The defence as conducted by Sir Charles
Russell was slilful and plausible Mr.. May
brick was shown TO be an habitual arsenic
cater. When sick at a hotel in Norfolk, Va,
be had repeatedly sent to drug-stOrc Tor doses
Of arsenic, American witnesses testified that
he was in the habit of taking the drug for
malarial disorders as far back as 1877. lie had
been seen to put arsenic powders in beef tea
the same nouriShment which his wife was ac-
cused of tamperng with. y London druggist
had frequently provided him with plck-me-
IDS y in which arsenic was an Ingredient. An
ex- Mayor of Liverpool repeated in court a con-
versation in which Mr.. Maybnck had admitted
two months before his death that he was in the
habit Of taking poisonous remedies habitually
All these details created reasonable grounds
for the presumption that the arsenic found in
his body had been self-adminiStercd, especially
when experts asserted that months would be
required for It's elimination from the system
if taken only twice in small quantities. AT tho
same time the defence produced medical testl-
mony to the effect that death had not resulted
from arsenic. but from natural causes thereby
counteractng the expert evidence for the prose
cutiOn.
The delicate task of explaining away the
arsenic-stainS on Mrs. MaybricliS clothing and
toilet-stand and of accounting. for the myS-
tefiOus powder which she administered with the
beef-tea still remained. Sir Charles Russell OBJ
tanned permission from the court to introduce
written statement read by the prisoner her
self. I'm this she admitted having habitualy
used a face-WaSh containing arsenic, and nav
ing bought and soaked ily-papeE in order to
obtain substitute for favonte American
prescription. As this improyised cosmetic was
applied with a handkerchief, the stains on her
clothing and toilet articles which the analyst
had identified were plauSbIy accounted for
As for the powder mixed with the nouri>hment
she asserted that her husband had begged her to
let him have it in that way that she had yield
ed to his opportunities when he assured her
that il was harmless and that she had prepared
It for him, but on finding him asleep When she
returned to the bedside had not given it to HIM
The inference which the defence desired the jury
10 draw from this recital was that Mr.. Maybnck
had called for one Of the arsenic powders
which he was in the habit Of taking as cure
all, and that his wife was ignorant OF the real
character Of the dose. This presumption was
strengthened by the fact that she left the bottle
on the table where it was found after her huS-
bands death. To these explanations was
added undoubtedly at the suggestion Of that
consummate artist Sir Charles Russell, dis
tinct statement that before her husbands death
she had confessed her unfaithfulneSs to him
and had received his forgiveness for the wrongs
which she had done. With this astonishing
revelation of the amenities of married life the
wretched woman sank into her chair and
listened with banched face TO the eloquent
plea made for her innocence by her astute coun-
sci. The Judges charge was favorable to the
defence. and the case was given yesterday to
the jury.