Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-08-08
THE MAVERICK CASE.



TIE JUDGE uooTxp NJ TEE CROWD A 4.
LEAVES TIE coURT-AN ATTACK UPON HIs
CARRIAGE PREVENTED By THE PoLrcK-rHx
STORY OF HER MARRIED LIFE AND CRIME
The verdict OF the jury and the sentence of
the judge in the case Of Mrs. Florence May
brick, charged with poisoning her husband in
Liverpool. England, were very unexpected.
The story told by Mrs. Msybrick in her defense
made deep impression upon those who
crowded the court room, and its publication
had quite an influence in her favor upon the
community. Yesterday thousands awaited the
judges departure from the court and howied
with rage when he appeared The hooting was
incessant, and there were frequent cries OF
SHAME" The crowd threatened to attack the
judges carriage, but the police interfered.
The feeling over the result is intense. Steps
are being taken to stay the execution, further
medical evidence having been secured.
Story of Her Married Life and Crime.
The Philadelphia Erening Telegraph gives the
following interesting history of the celebrated
case:
Although there has been difference Of opin-
Ion in England as to the result of the trial of
Mrs. Maybrick for the poisoning Of her hus-
band, the general belief has been that she
would be acquitted, and her conviction and
sentence to death has created much surprise.
The trial, which began on the LIST instant, has
attracted widespread attention. No similar
case, IL is said has been on trial in England for
many years. The last affair of the kind was
the trial, thirty years ago, Of Madeline Smith
for poisoning her lover. Miss Smith, like Mrs.
Maybrick, a young lady of some social con-
sequence, and resided at Glasgow. While still
o mere girl her affections were won by a mere
tricious fellow, who proved unworthy. Her
perception Of this and his personal treatment
Of her caused a revulsion Of feeling. The allie
cation made against her was that she had in
weighed him to her house and had poisoned
him. The evidence against her, although, cir
cumstantial, was very compromising. Owing
to the brilliant defense made by her counsel
she was acquitted, and Is now happily married
and living In London.
On the 18th Of last May Mrs. Florence Eliza
beth Maybrick, the wife of Jas. Maybrick, a
rich cotton merchant of Liverpool was placed
under arrest, charged with poisoning her hus-
band The arrest was brought about in a re-
markable way. Mrs Maybrick's little girl had
dropped a letter in the muddy street; the nurse
maid in charge Of the child picked it up and
opened the soiled envelope, intending, as abe
declared, to place the inclosed letter in fresh
envelope She took the trouble, however, to
read 1t, and found its contents TO run a. fol-
lows:
Desrest Your letter under cover TO g. came to hand
10 ays ns i9s ySs on Ms9Ss s did not
giving HIM the necessary Instructions.
-slnce my return have been nursing all day and
sa,ssSn ysseT1 Sy Now al depends uI9n how long
are here and we are terribly anxious. cannot an
swer your letter fully to-day, darling, but relieve
lure NJ has been delriors sinee sunday and Know 1
ns Is q he rs na q the Of the
w n Her Ias sss ne tSd me was mere abreson
In fact he believes my statement, although he win not
dearest: but in any case don't leave England until
have seen you once again You must feel that those
Which must ever excuse their injustice in
felt what inferred You wish to Write me abouy
anything do So all letters pass through my hands
Excuse this scrawl my darling but dare not leave
TIE room for moment. and do not know when
own FLosrs"
Within a few hours after the nursemaid
opened the note Maybrick was q dead man.
The girl gave the letter to Edwin Maybrick,
brother of James, who allowed the funeral to
go on without arousing suspicion, but he
watched the widow closely and consulted with
the police. Eleven days after Mr.. Maybrick's
death, while his widow was i'll in bed. profess
ing to be Frustrated by her husbands death,
the police made her q prisoner and remov ed
her to the hospital ward of Waltham Jail. She
was not told of the intention to charge her
with murder, but that she simply was required
as a witness to clear up the suspicious nature
Of her husbands death. When 10 became
known that Mrs. Maybrick was actually charged
with poisoning her husband the evidence on
which the charge was based seemed so himsy
and purely circumstantial that her neighbor's
felt indignant against the police and relatives of
But the detectives knew their ground, and the
evidence against the accused woman at the
coroners inquest, which WAS held ON the 2Sth
Of the same month, showed that there was at
least strong circumstantial case against the
woman.
THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT.
The evidence brought out at the inquest has
been repeated in an ampliied form at the trial,
which has just been concluded, and need not
be detailed at length in this connection. Mr..
Maybrick's death was sudden and unexpected
and the post norton examination disclosed the
presence Of arsenic in large quantities. There
had been frequent quarreis between husband
and wife, and the woman's unfaithfulness was
proved by discriminating correspondence and
direct testimony, as well as by her own con-
fession in open court two days ago. motive
was thus furnished for the alleged crime in her
desire to be released from marital bonds which
had become distasteful to her. As she was sus-
designs az st his life, she had been watched by
physicians, Eu .ses and servants and nearly every
inmate of the house ID something to say against
her. A nurse maid, as already stated, inter-
cSpted letter winch she wrote to her para
mour. The nurse saw her stealthily mixing
one Of the last doses taken by Mr.. MAVERICK
An analyst testified that spots found ON her
dressing gown, handkerchiefs, aprons and the
cover of her dressing-room stand were arsenic
stains. House maids related her curious habit
of soaking hy papers 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 unmistakable traces of arsenic in the
husbands body after inexplicable death
and also In nourishment given to him from her
hand and in her own clothing and dressing
room the prosecution apparently had an easy
ask in convincing the Jury Of guilt
The defense, az conducted by Sir Charles
Russell, was skillful and plausible. Mr.. May
brick was shown to be an habitual arsenic
eater. When sick at hotel in Norfolk, Va,
he had repeatedly sent to the drug store for
doses OF arsenic. American witnesses testified
that he was in the habit OF taking the drug for
malarial disorders a. far back a. 1877. He had
been seen to put arsenic powders in beef tea
the same nourishment which his wife was &C.
cused Of tampering with. London druggist
had frequently provided him with '.pick-me-
ups, IN which arsenic was an ingredient. An
ex-mayor Of Liverpool repeated in court con-
yersation in which Mr.. Maybrick 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-administered, especially
when experts asserted that months would be
required for its elimination from the system il
taken only twice In small quantities. At the