Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-08-31
MRS. MAVERICK MAY GO FREE.
An Ingenious Legal Plea in Her Behalf to
Be Made to the Courts.

An Ingenious Legal Plea in Her Behalf to
Be Made to the Courts.
London dispatch to the New York Herald
says Mrs Maybrick is to be saved from life
long Imprisonment unless the plans Of her
friends miscarry. 1t is likely that within few
days an application will be made for q writ Of
haoeas corpus, upon which it is proposed to
test one 81 the most extraordinary points ever
raised In a British court of justice. The pre-
rogative Of the queen in committing the SEN
tence Of the alleged husband poisoner will be
put upon trial in a way that may startle the
public.
During the two years silence that has fol-
lowed the trial of Mrs. Maybrick one man has
toiled steadily to unravel the mystery sur
rounding her terrible fate. He is Alexander
William Macdougal, a barrister of Lincoln's
Inn. who presided at public meeting held to
protest against the miscarriage of justice that
resulted in conviction. With the assistance Of
a few men and women who have taken an
interest in Mrs. Maybrick he traced out. step
by step. the remarkable series of events that
led to her downfall. He has written large
volume on the case, which has just been pub
lished.
NEW EVIDENCE BROUGHT OUT.
In this book Mr.. Macdougal arraigns the
judge, the jury and all who were interested in
convicting Mrs. Maybrick. He makes public
new evidence-private letters that throw
strong light upon this famous case; but it Is
upon point OF constitutional law that the new
attempt to pluck the prisoner from her cell is
to be made. 1t is not an appeal for pardon,
but demand for an unconditional discharge,
based upon the law. The test will be made
upon the decision Of Mr.. Matthews, the home
secretary. in advising the queen ito respite the
capital sentence on Florence Maybrick and to
commute her punishment to penal servitude
Tor life. inasmuch AS, although the evidence
leads clearly to the conclusion that the prisoner
administered and attempted to administer
arsenic to her husband with intent to murder,
yet it does not wholly exclude q reasonable
doubt whether his death was, in fact, caused
by the administration of arsenic"
The home secretary came to this decision
after taking the best medical and legal advice
that could be obtained"
WHY HER RELEASE Is DEMANDED.
Counsel have examined the laws Of England
back to the time of Edward and have found
that, without any exception, the power of the
sovereign to use the supreme prerogative is
strictly confined to acts beneficial to the sub
Ject and the sovereign cannot use the royal
prerogative to the injury of the subject.
Mrs. Maybrick was indicted for murder. She
was not called upon to answer to any other
charge. The home secretary has declared that
there is a reasonable doubt whether Mr.. May
clared it officially i'll the most explicit terms.
1t is true, he thinks, that Mrs. Maybrick un-
qrestionably attempted to poison her husband.
but that is not the question. She was not tried
for attempting: it was against the law to try
her on such a charge.
II Mrs. Maybrick was not guilty of murder
then the royal prerogative is being unlawfuliy
exercised in keeping her in prison for an offense
OF which she was not notwithstanding to
commit murder.
ANOTHER CHANCE FOR HER.
Still another gateway to freedom is provided
in suit brought by Mr.. Cleaver, Mrs May
bricks solicitor. against the New York Mutual
Life Insurance Company for E2.3OO. the insur-
ance on the life of Mr.. Maybrick in favor of his
imprisoned widow. The policy is for 81. 500,
but f200 was paid without protest The in
surance company claimed that it was not bound
to pay in case murder had been committed by
the beneficiary.
THE FACTS TO BE INVESTIGATED.
The courts have decided that if it was murder
the company was not obliged to pay, and Mr..
Cleaver challenges the insurance company to
prove that it was murder. The verdict of the
Liverpool jury will not do: it is not evidence in
a civil action. To avoid paving the sum
claimed on the policy the company will be
forced to prove the crime by witnesses in
court. That will give the defense a chance
to introduce a mass OF newly discovered
evidence.
The most important thing is that Mrs. May
brick can be called and sworn as a witness. Sho
was not allowed to testify in her own behalf in
the Liverpool trial. The court simply per-
permitted her to make brief statement and
refused to allow proof that the same statement
had been made to two persons even before the
inquest.
Unless the insurance company fears to fight
the case and succeeds in backing out by effect
INfyn e.
Of Mrs. Maybrick feel certain that she can
establish her innocence