Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1904-08-17

that the judge who summed up the case
comported himself in manner most I'M
judicial.
The unjudicial action of Justice Ste
phen in the Maybrick case rendered him
unpleasantly notorious, and remains one
of the strangest acts ever INDUCED in
by the bench. Two of the eight days Of
the trial Justice Stephen spent in trying
to throw guilt on the woman whom the
medical men had declared wrongfully
accused, accused Of a crime which did
not exist. AS Sir Charles Russell, the
distinguished lawyer that defended Mrs.
Maybrick, said Of Justice Stephen: He
passionately invited the jury to find a
verdict of guilty, taking two days to
sum up-the first day as judge, and on
the second he ragged like a Violent coun-
Sel for the prosecution against her"
People from all classes of life have
concerned themselves in the effort to
obtain a pardon for the imprisoned wom-
an, the highest, both at home and abroad,
endeavoring to make their influence
count against the stolidity of the British
government. There is no space to
enumerate the famous appeals made in
Mrs. Maybrick's behalf, but mention will
be given some few. Mr.. W.T.. Stead,
three years after trial, awoke to belief
in the criminalty of the judgment passed,
and with his accustomed fearlessness
went to the attack. In 1898 he published
these words: Il cannot resist the con-
clusion that the case is scandalous IL
ldstration of the very worst sides of the
British judicial system and of the Brit
Ish character, that, If only to give us a
chance of burying the matter in oblivion,
Mrs. Maybrick should be released. do
not care how predjudiced any one may
be against Mrs. May brick. No English
man can feel otherwise than ashamed of
having to defend the manner in which
she has been dealth with by our country
and our government. If, as seems by no
means improbable, the case should be-
come a subject of diplomatic representa-
tons, as it has already become the SUBJ
ject for very vehement journalistic dis
putatiOn between the papers in America
and Great Britain, we shall not be able
to escape a gibbeting that is little short
Of national humiliation. The Amer
leans, who in high places and in low, are
criticising the way in which we dealt
with Mrs. Maybrick, have us on the hip
A sorrier exhibition of all that is worst
in the laundering, wrong-headed, illog-
tcal side of John Bull has seldom or never
given occasion for his enemies to exult
and his friends VINCE"
Mr.. Maybrick was man VIGOROUSLY
Immoral, but Justice Stephen, in his
TRADE against the unhappy wife, en-
phasized not Mr.. Maybrick's unsavory
reputation, but portrayed the woman as
= horrible adulteress, false to her lord,
the husband that she was bound to love
and respect. The slightest excuse for
the judges strong language lay in the
fact that once Mrs. Maybrick maddened
by the numberless insults heaped upon
her by the man whose name she bore,
did imprudently compromise herself by
association with q man friend in whom
she had confided the tragedy Of her daily
life. Justice Stephen, having horror
Of unfafthful women, worked himself up
into frenzy about this one he believed
guilty, and also worked the jury up to
such pitch it was able In very few mo-
ments to pass an unlooked-for verdict
It appears Sir Fitzjames Stephen felt II