Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-08-26

W. Armstrong of Richmond was response
BILE for the orignation of the question OF
Mrs. Maybrick's citjZenSh p.
After Mr.. Hayden had been shown a
newspaper clipping containing d statement
made by Mr.. ID. w. Armstrong of Rich
mond. in connection with his answer to the
suit brought against him by Madame Won
Rooues, Who il Mrs. Maybrick's mother,
that the release of Mrs. Maybrick from
prison was secured by trick, the attorney
sa id:
Mrs Maybric1 and her mother, the
Baroness Won ROQues. are the parties in
interest and the statement of Armstrong,
their former attorney and agent. that Mrs.
Maybrick's release was obtained by a trick
perpetrated upon the English government
because her testimony was necessary in
this litigation is unqualifiedly false. Under
the will of her grandfather, Darius Blake
Holbrcok, who was partner OF cyrus
Field IN laying the first Atlantic cable, and
was a wealthy man of his day, one-half OF
lis estate. including o.2J2.H0 acres of land
in Virginia. West Virginia and Kentucky,
was left to the Baroness Won Roques, the
mother of Mrs. Maybrick, for life, at her
death to go to her issue or their descend
ants.
mrs May ybrick is the tlly child of Baro-
ness Won Rogue. The effect of this will
was to vest the fee in Mrs. Maybrick. the
baroness having only the right TO enjoy its
profits during life.
A Deed in 1887.
MIS-. MAY ana itT HbtitI tNttuleu
deeds to one Groom about 1887 at the in
stance of Armstrong. who was then their
attorney. in order that the title might be
centered in some one to facilitate convey
ancing Under this deed in 1888 Mr. Arm
strong sold to a Mr. Roberts of New York
a portion of the lands for about 500 0o0.
This sale was not reported to Mrs. May
brick or her mother and only came to the
knowledge of my firm Hayden & Yarrell-
within the past six months.
In 1889 during an intermiSSion of twenty
minutes, while the judge was giving his in
strucuons to the jury in Mrs Maybrick's
trial for the murder of her husband six
deeds We're presented to her for her sigma
ture, six times in her own right and twelve
times as guardian of her children.
Mrs Maybrick says her understanding
was that the deeds conveyed small por-
ton of her Kentucky lands. Ii subsequent
" developed they We're deeds confirming
former deeds to Groome, as well as convey
ing Kentucky lands.
The consideration cIteu was one dollar,
but she understood the real considera ton
was $4,000. of which her mother and her
self would receive $4,000. less the ex-
acting under power of attorney from
them.
Just after Mrs Maybrick had signed the
deeds she tainted. She did not read :he
ueedS. she said, and was not in a frame Of
mind to understand them had she done so.''
The testimony of the officials of the Ken
lucky Union Land Company, now in the
office of Messrs. Hayden and Yarrell. shows
that Mr.. Armstrong received $S5,e00 put
of the transaction.
1t is said that $4,000 was received from
J. Taylor Ellison of Richmond for another
portion of land. About 800 900 acres of
these lands in Vert Virginia We're sold to
other parties. All the lands have been
transferred.
The hope of Mrs. Maybrick and her
mother is that such portion of the lands
may be recovered as were conveyed since
the beginning of the suit by Baroness Won
ROGUE against Armstrong, Ii pendenS hav-
ing been filed in number of counties
where the land is located before the deeds
We're recorded.
About two years ago the state of West
Virginia began suit to quiet title TO 100000
acres of land which had passed under these
deeds Mrs Maybrick and her mother We're
made party defendants Their testimony
became necessary. These facts We're rep
resented to the British government, but in
no wise affected Mrs, MAVERICKS release