The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1889-08-03 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

THE MAYBRICK TRIAL.  SPECIAL DESCRIPTIVE SKETCH FROM "OUR SEAT IN COURT." I Am in the Crown Court, St. George's Hall, and have a splendid seat just below the judge. With a walking stick I could almost touch either the judge, Mr. Addison, Sir Charles Russell, or Mrs. Maybrick. I can see everything and everybody, and this enables me with accuracy to describe anything I choose. When I arrived in the court at half-past nine on Wednesday morning, most of the seats were occupied, and even the barristers' benches were already half full. A large number of people were, of course, anxious to get into the court, and I have no doubt, the seats could have been let at a handsome price. But the arrangements seemed to be admirable.. Everything was effected without pushing, crushing, or noise. At the doors of the court there was no suspicion of the indecorous excitement and scramble which are so frequent at the trials of causes Mare. In looking round the court, one, at a glance saw manifestations of most unusual interest. The class of people who were intently watching the development of the case were a different class than usual. The lawyers—even those who are indifferent to such matters—were profoundly attentive. I counted about sixty barristers in court at one time. One recognised also the faces of lawyers, journalists and officials who are usually not attracted by criminal trials, and who take such things as a matter of course. But we are very soon in the midst of things. At about ten o'clock Mrs. Maybrick emerged from the staircase into the dock and walked gracefully to the front, and there waited to be arraigned by the clerk of the Assize. She answered with distinctness " Not guilty." She no longer wore the heavy black veil but, contrary to expectation, she still had on a veil, though it was so thin that it did not obscure her face in any material degree, which enabled one for the first time to study her features and expression. When a person is charged with a crime, it is easy to persuade oneself that his or her countenance exhibits an indication of criminality. But this is often quite imaginary. It is like the case of the phrenologist. Some wags got together the heads, made in plaster of Paris, of a certain number of murderers and philanthropists and induced a phrenologist to examine them in a dark room. It is said that some of the greatest philanthropists were thus mistaken for murderers. Mrs. Maybrick looked less sombre than previously. Her bonnet and dress were elegant, and her hair, in a hundred little curls, has, if I mistake not, ' turned half grey since her trouble, though she looks extremely young, her face being almost childish in its expression. After careful and frequent examination of her features, I could detect nothing of what is called a "criminal character." A good deal has been said about her month, which previously has been the only part of her &ea uncovered. But out of the first half-dozen women in court whom I looked at, one had a mouth firmer and mote animal than that of Mrs. Maybrick. Nor is there anything fierce I in her eyes. Only a strange, hunted look, with an expression gentle rather than otherwise. A youngish woman, with a freak complexion, doubtless a female warder, attended her in the dock. Mr. Addison, for the prosecution, of coarse, led off the proceedings in a very moderate speech, extending over a couple of hours, during which one heard the now familiar story of the ease all retold. Then began the tedious examination of witneams, which reminds me of a conversation I had with a Russian the other day. He could not understand the way in which English criminal proceedings are carried on. First the Coroner's Court with its detailed evidence,  then the Magistrates' Court, where all the evidence is told over again, and finally the A.asize Court, in which the evidence is repeated for a third time. My Russian friend wondered at this repetition, and pointed out that in his country a ' suspected crime is, in the first place, brought before a legal functionary who hears the case, and, if he thinks there is sufficient cause for doing so, he sends it for trial, and then the question is thrashed out once for all. There is no need to discuss the pros and cons of