The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-05-26
THE FAMOUS CASE
OF MRS. MAVERICK
Review Of the Evidence Adduced During
Her Trial.
CLAIM THAT SHE IS INNOCENT
Ex.Attorney General Garland Goes
Over the Whole Testimony and Con.
cludes That Injustice Has Been
Done to This Woman by the English
Authorities.

Responding to a parliamentary in
quiry the other day, the British Home
Secretary, for perhaps the thirtieth
time. announced that the English gov
ernment had formed no intention OF re-
opening the case of Mrs. Maybrick, the
American woman who is In British
prison charged with husband murder.
Notwithstanding this announcement,
further effort will be made to secure
her release. for the men and women
who are working in her behalf are ac-
tuated by that zeal and enthusiasm
which, in olden times. made martyrs.
An examination OF the entire legal pro-
ceedings in the trial of Mrs. Maybrick
has recently been made at the request OF
Secretary Olney by General Garland
and it will be used as the basis of
report to congress. In the meantime
for public information. we give space
to the following summary of the facts
in the case, taken from Mr.. Garland's
reviews of the trial. We are indebted
for this summary to the Rochester
Democrat and Chronicle, which is d
staunch believer in Mrs. Maybrick's in
nocence. and an enthusiastic advocate
that unfortunate woman's behalf. That
paper says:
Florence T. Chandler was born in
1862. 'She was the daughter Of u promi-
nent banker of Mobile, William q.
Chandler, the first husband OF her
mother, the Baroness de Roques. who
was "a daughter of Darius Blake Hol-
brook, a New York merchant, one Of
Cyrus W. Fields partners In laying the
first Atlantic cable. In 1881. she was
married at Norfolk. Virginia. to James
Maybrick. of Liverpool. Mr.. Maybrick
was at this time man a years Of age.
made prematurely old by the reckless
excesses of fast life. and addicted to
the habitual use OF powerful stimu-
lants and tonics. He was known by
his Norfolk acquaintances to be an ar
| senic eater and took regularly tonic
medicine of which arsenic Is princi-
pal ingredient.
MOVED TO LIVERPOOL.
"After several years residence in
Norfolk the Maybricks removed to
Liverpool. On April 81. 1889 Mr.. May
brick. who for a long time had been all
ing and taking unusually large guam
titles of his tonics and stimulants, went
| to race meeting on horseback. was
| caught In rainstorm, got wet through
| and stayed out very late. dining not
wisely but too well with some friends
The next day he was. naturally, very
| i'll. Mrs. Maybrick called in two we'll
| known physicians who. with the aid of
professional nurses, attended him con-
| stantly until his death, which occurred
| at $40 o'clock on the evening of May H.,
1889. Early In the morning of that day
Mrs. Maybrick fell into a speechless
| swoon which lasted for forty eight
hours, ard from the effects of which
lchn 4
| mediately after his death two ignoran 1t
| maid servants. great admirers of Mr.
| Maybrick, and great enemies of Mrs.
Maybrick. expressed their valuable
| opinion that the misses had poisoned
the master to Edwin and Michael May
| brick, brothers OF the dead man. who
| had always disliked their American
sister-in-law. They instantly called in
the police. Search was made and ar
| senic enough to poison fifty men was
found. every grain of 1t. it should be
| noted, In apartments and receptacles
| that were exclusively Mr. Maybrick's
On the strength of this evidence Mrs.
| Maybrick was placed under arrest on
May IA. She was still semi-unconscious
| and unable to leave her bed, but police
| and she was not allowed to see any one
| alone. On May Is, no testimony having
yet been taken by the coroner as to the
cause of Mr.. Maybrick's DEATH she was
taken to jail. She was not allowed to
| be present at any stage of the inuuest,
On June Mr. Davis, to whom the liver
| stomach and intestines of the deceased
had been submitted for examination
reported that no traces of arsenic had
been found In the stomach or its con
tents. that one-hftieth Of grain of ar
senic the twentieth part of fatal
dose) had been found in the liver, and
IN the intestines. traces not weighable
not enough to kill humming bird,
ON the strength of this Mrs Maybr!ck
was committed for trial on the charge
of wilfully numbering a confirmed ar
senic eater.
HER TRIAL.
| ION June 18th she was brought before
the committing magistrate and heard
for the first time the testimony against
her Her trial began at Liverpool JULY
II, 1859. before Mr. Justice Stephen and
u jury made up of three plumbers, "A
| turner. provision dealer. gro
| Ger. two farmers, an ironmonger. a
| baker. painter and milliner The
trial lasted eight days. six of which
| were consumed by the witnesses and
counsel and two in the delivery of his
|
most extradordinary animus against
the prisoner 1t would be tedious and
useless to fully rehearse the testimony
| here, but II may be said that on the
| crucial point of the case, the medical
| testimony was absolutely convincing
that James Maybrick did not die of ar
senical poisoning. Ii may b. noted, too
| that not one grain Of the arsenic found
in Maybrick's apartments and belong
in 4 ..,t.
| Maybrick. there was not Il scintilla of
evidence that she had ever purchased
it, ever had ii in her possession or evel
even knew Of its presence i'm the house
| 1t will be perceived that the prosecl-
tons case had completely broken down
in vital point and that IL verdict OF
| guilty in this case could not but be q
verdict against evidence. So fully was
this recognized that while the jury was
out the prosecution admitted that 1t die
not anticipate conviction and Mr. Jus.
tice Stephen. in lucid interval said t,
the clerk: 1T is impossible to find hel
guilty In the face of the medical evi
| dpnce'
But the jury. after being out onl,
half an hour. came in with verdict OF
guilty that was u surprise to everybody
and that was universally condemned "a.
absurd by every eminent physician anc
every prominent lawyer in Great Bri
tain as well as by the press and by pub
lie opinion.
THE JURY DECEIVED.
'It is essential to the proper under
standing of :his case that the crcum
stances that were influential i'm leadins
the jury to its most erroneous but still
honest conclusion should be explained
First 1t should be said that while ther,
was. of course, no direct evidence tha
Mrs. Maybrick had administered ar
senic to her husband. there was. natur
ally and inevitably. evidence that sh,
had opportunities for SO doing so, be
cause every wife living under the sam,
roof with her husband has such oppor
tunities. Further. while there was M
proof that she purchased the arsenic
found In the house, there was no proc
as to how 1t came to be where Il wa!
found, which Is the same thing as say
| inc thaf thprp WAS nn nrpnf that M,,c