The daily morning journal and courier., 1899-07-15
STORY OF MRS. MAVERICK
"OW CONFINED IN AN ENGLISH
 JAIL FOR MURDER.
Asummary of the Celebrated Case Of the alleged Poisoner of Her Husband, Whose Release is Sought

III the sunset of a beautiful Angus
 day just ten years ago. a slight, small
 cold little woman stood at the bar of tn
 olo criminal court in Liverpool, receiv
 Ing her sentence of death for murde
 ny polson' And of all the throng tha
 niled the court in that supreme moment
 their eyes fixed upon her as, her hand.
 resting lightly on the dock rail, stt
 raced the judge in the black cap, she
 alone was in complete command of her self. Not muscle in the colorless dead
 wall of her face moved. The blond hair
 neatly combed and frilled with sever,
 accuracy never stirred. The light eye
 broWs never twiched as the words of the
 sentence dooming her to death by the
 rope fell upon her ear. An additional
 compression of the thin lips with their
 uncomfortable tightness at the corners, colder glint than usual in the hardest eyes ever seen in man or woman, and mat was all. And the voice of the judge
 ceased she turned and, with something
 of the smooth, soft, 1.-the grace of pan ther, fitted down the steps of the dock to the cells below.
 The woman was Florence Elizabeth Maybrick, who from that time has been more or less an object of a certain mor- bid, sympathetic interest to a large part of the public in England and America. The alleged victim was her husband, James Maybrick.
 The agitation that followed the con- vction of Mrs. Maybrick, the review of the case by the then home secretary, Henry Matthews the communication of the sentence of death to penal servitude for life, and the subsequent repeated at tempts to secure her release, are well within the memory of the reading pub lie. With all possible respect to the en- terprise of the New York newspapers which furnished cabled reports of the proceedings at the trial, it may be said that the vast majority of the general American public is ignorant of the vital points in the Maybrc1 case, or of the character of the evidence which led to her conviction by the Liverpool jury.
 As to the justice of the verdict or of the punishment decreed by the home secretary, there are many varied opin- ions The objectors are consolidated into three parties. The first party, com posed of the hysterical shriekers, led by Gail Hamilton, argue that Mrs. May brick should not have been convicted, because she was an American, and that her detention in an English prison is an international outrage and Haunt in the face of the American nation. This pro- position is simply an insult to the com mon sense of the plain people of this country, and may be dismissed with the comment that it's only effect so far has been to aggravate the stiffneckedness of British officialisn, and place almost in superable obstacles in the way of Mrs Maybricks release. The second party, led by the Baroness de Rogue, Mrs. Maybrick's mother, and Alexander Me Dougall, an English barrister, declare that Mrs. Maybrick was absolutely in- nocent of the crime for which she has suffered, and Is the martyred heroine of wicked conspiracy against her life and liberty on the part of the Maybrick fam ily. But the majority of those who were
 
 followed the evidence in the case, reach these conclusions:
 l. That James Maybrick did not die | from the administration of arsenic, but | that the gastro-enteritis from which he | suffered was induced by natural causes. | 2. That the evidence, nevertheless, | clearly proved beyond the possibility of doubt the purchase and systematic ad of arsenic by the prisoner to the deceased with intent to kill.
 3. That there was ample testimony to show that Maybrick himself had for years preceding and subsequent to his been an arsenic eater that Mrs. Maybrck was aware of this fact, and relied upon it to protect her in the event of accusation.
 A. That Maybrick, by long usage had become saturated with the poison, and was arsenc-proof.
 D. That in deciding that Mrs. May brick had been guilty of attempted mur- fer, the home secretary arrived at the only true solution of the mystery.
 6. That if Mrs. Maybrick was not guilty of the actual murder of her hus- oand she was legally entitled to acquit al.
 z. That, inasmuch as she was never ried for attempted murder and as that | ,harge formed no part of the indictment l ,n which she was arraigned, she should lot be punished for attempted murder md is. in fact, illegally detained. In view of the powerful efforts for her elease now made by Ambassador ,hoate and by Lord Russell of Killowen, yho defended her at her trial, it may ( ,e as we'll to submit, for the benefit of ' he readers of Lesie's Weekly, sum r nary of the evidences submitted by i rosecution and defense at her trial. The beginning of the chain is found at I house, one of the series of s fila residences built in and around t .arston, suburb of Liverpool beloved c f the merchant, the flash stock broker, n he professional man and the wealthy t hopkeeper. It was the March of 1889. a he Maybricks had met on an Atlantic t ner bound from New York to Liver | ool. They had been eight years mar S. ed Those eight years told the story Il baggard weariness and peevish dis n ,ntent. of a ceaseless dragging at the tt naiu that held them together. The usband, with his heavy head and his N eavv jaw held fast by the domestic F NV sacred in all English households, W ,at the wife is the obedient. blind, un- h uestioning slave of her husband, and B