Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-03-28
MRS. MAVERICK HERE
Came to Testify in a Suit
at Law.
INVOLVES PROPERTY
OVER A NOTARY PUBLIC.
Initial Steps in the Proceedings Began
This acknowledgements
for Luncheon.
INVOLVES PROPERTY

4 ID pooSAUiy CSttei hHOWu tidH ludl VI duS
| other woman in America, was In Washing
| ton today as witness in lawsuit the sue
| cess of which to the plaintiff may mean the
restoration to Mrs Maybrick of her chill
| dren and the reunion of herself and her
mother. the Baroness Won Roques.
Fourteen years in an English prison, with
| almost every influential man and woman in
America from time to time petitioning the
| British government for her release, have
made of Mrs. Maybrick one of the martyrs
or the century, and her final success in re-
gaining her freedom has been the subject
OF congratulatory messages from thousands
| or Americans all over the land. Charged
with the murder of her husband, this Amer
lean woman was tried, convicted and sem
fenced to life Imprisonment. Notwithstand-
ing the almost absolute proof that the judge
who presided at her trial was of unsound
mind during the course of that proceeding
and that certain prejudice existed, this
woman was refused clemency. and year
after year her case was held sealed by tine
British government. Only last year tiid it
come to pass that she was granted leave
from her prison, which, it is generally con-
ceded. will he permanent. although no par
don was granted. and she will probably
live and die on American soil, a free woman.
The case which brought her to Wash
ington is technically known as Caroline E.
Won Roaues against D. w. Armstrong ct
al. and involves T;ss large parcel Of valuable
Kentucky. 1t has been pending in the
chancery court of Richmond since its
| institution in 1893 and has been held UP
! principally because the presence of Mrs.
Maybrick was necessary a witness One
| or the principal reasons for trying to get
| her out of prison. after that of humanita
rian reasons looking to the release of
woman whom great ma jority of the world
q
testify in this case, which involves SO much
to her mother and herself. Mrs. Maybrick
is not party to the suit, but merely
witness for her mother, the Baroness Won
Roques.
Did Not Show Age.
Mrs Maybrick appeared at the law offices
of Hayden & Yarrell In the Pacific building
this morning at II o'clock when the initial
steps In the proceeding began. Her per-
sonal appearance did not indicate woman
who had spent many years in practically
solitary confinement behind prison bars. and
her age, to the casual observer would have
been presumed to be not more than thirty.
Her hair is a light, fluffy brown. her eyes
deep blue-gray, and her complexion of
the fairness of the out-of-door English
girl. She was becomingly gowned in vio
let coat suit and wore white silk shirt
| waist and girdle of lavender, gray gloves
and gray feather boa. while her hat
green leaves. She appeared perfectly at
ease, but at one time displayed some rest
lessness over the tediousness of the objec-
tons of opposing counsel to the notary Sc
lected to take the testimony.
The case of her mother, the plaintiff, was
represented by Hayden & Yarrell, while for
| the defendant, D. w. Armstrong, there APP
peared Clayton E. Emig of Washington and
Philip B. Shields of Richmond The notary
was Herbert l.. Frank, who has offices
with Hayden & Yarrell, and which fact led
-; Ix- l.,
his taking the testimony. Mr.. Frank, to
the formal questions of counsel, said that
he was not member of the firm of Hay
| Gen & Yarrell and that ne had no con-
nection with it, nor had he any interest In
| the case pending. The objections occupied
some time, and Mrs Maybrfck finally said:
This seems to me to be great waste of
time. If the gentlemen object to Mr..
| doesn't matter, only let us get at the
case" The hour between II and II o'clock
was filled with these objections. at which
last named hour adjournment was taken
| until 1 o'clock for luncheon.
Mr.. Frank was allowed to take the tes-
timony. the objections of counsel standing
as part of the record. During the exam
ination Mr.. Armstrong, who was present,
entered objection after objection to every
question propounded by the examining
counsel and answered by the witness.
An Alleged Letter.
The testimony hinged upon an alleged let
ter which Mrs. Maybrick said Arms trong
had written to her husband in 1887 or 1883,
in which she said the writer had 'madc
the customary statement that the lands
were of no value and not marketa BILE" She
said she was living in Liverpool at the
time. ard that when she was arrested for
the murder of Maybrick her papers were
taken from her by the English authorities.
1T was then customary" she said, for
the English government to destroy all pa
pers and letters of prisoners, but this rule
has since been changed and they are now
preserved"
She told that she claimed an interest in
the lands by virtue of her grandfather's
will, and that reply, well as almost
every other she made to questions was
objected to by Mr.. Armstrong. The last
named party was agent for the property
and is said to have disposed of it during
the Imprisonment of Mrs. Maybrick The
defendants claim that she has not and
never did have any title to the property,
and seem possessed of a plentitude of pa
pers of a formidable legal appearance.
The plaintiffs did not, this afternoon, pro-
duce any documentary evidence. but it is
believed they have a strong card held in
reserve for the redirect examination. The
continuation of the hearing will be had
m