TOPICS OF THE DAY. (FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.) London, June 14.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 388, 27 July 1889, Page 4

TOPICS OF THE DAY. (FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.) London, June 14.

THE MAYBRICK CASE. Mrs Maybrick, who lies under such strong suspicion of poisoning her husband, met him first on board an Atlantic liner eight, years ago. as hu was returning from iho States. One day, soon after leaving "New York, she stumbled whilst descending the companion ladder, and would have fallen but for the timely help of Mr Maybrick, who caught her in his aims'. Doing so he sprained his ankle and was laid up for some clays. When they armed in Liverpool Miss Chantler called with seme iriends with whom she was stopping to thank Mr Maybrick for his services. Ho returned the call. Acquaintanceship 1 ipened into friendship, and friendship into love. The pair were married, and for some years seem to have lived happily enough, though 'tis said Maybrick was a strict, rather sombre man, and never made full allowances for his young wife's lather giddy ways. She was constantly outraging the convenances — from his point of view— and ho nagged at her and found fault continually. Some little time ago Mr and Mrs Maybrick went to stop at the Palace Hotel, Birkdale. There they met Mr Alfred Brierley, a cotton -broker like Maybrick, and a business acquaintance. On the ntcrhfc Mis Maybiick was introduced to Brierley there happened to be a lady at the ball, and she scandalised her husband by dancing several times with the new acquaintanceship. He very unwisely fanned the latent flame by scolding her violently, «nd in consequence she prosecuted Brierley's acquaintance with redoubled ardour. Brierley himself, though by no manner of means an Adonis, seems to be a favourite with the fair sex, and has (justly or unjustly) the reputation of liking to flirt with married women. He appears at any rate to have met Mrs MaybricW's advances half way for a time and led her into a very questionable intrigue. Then came the grand matrimonal quarrel between Mr and Mrs Maybrick and some culminating imprudence on the part of the latter and Brierley. After this Biierley appears to have taken fright, and resolved to end the aflair. Ho was, in all probability, startled at the intensity of the passion he had roused in Mrs Maybrick, and disinclined to play the part of co-respondent in a a im. con. case. He consequently told Mrs Maybrick he should leave Liverpool. This the police (as I told you last week) infer drove Mrs Maybrick to extremities. The soaking of the fly-papers for the purpose of obtaining a solution of arsenic was (it is supposed) suggested to her by reading of another Liverpool poisoner, vi;\, the enterpiising Mrs Flannagan, who was hanged two years back. The theory of the defence is that Maybrick was an habitual at sonic-eater, and had been secietly taking the thug in quantities for years. Mr Michael Maybrick and Mr Edward Maybiick both " pooh pooh " the pos-ibility, a\ erring that they mu^( have known of this habit had it existed. lam not so sui-e of this. A man's brothers aic not always his confidantes in such matteis.

A FAMOUS POISONING CASE. The Bravo case, which the Liverpool murder case so strongly resembles, created a tremendous senfation in the summer of 1877. Mr Chas. Bravo was a City man, with influential connections, and lived in a comfortable country, ov rather, subiuban, hou?e at Balliam. Mrs Bravo, •who had been tnairied befote to a Lieutenant Ricnido, of the Guards, was u showy brunette of thirty, and some yeais older than her husband. During her widowhood she had been much talked about in connection with a " nice clean old man," called Dr. Gully, the head of the then pieat hydropathic establishment at Malvern. Her lelations with this gentleman were dubious to a degree, but she broke them oft when she took-up with Bravo and pioraisccl the latter nc\er to see Gully asrain. Bra\o certainly knew oi liis wife's Imu\oh iv i tli the elderly doctor before ho mairied her, but he passed it over partly, (it was supposed) because he really loved the woman and partly because she had money which ho wanted. Shortly after their marriage Bravo, who was of a very volatile, excitable temperament, found, to his horror, his wite was a confirmed tippler. She didn't gel drunk exactly, but she took enough wine to excite her undesirably, and to make her captious and unreasonable. Biavo furthermore got hold of the idea (unjustly as a matter of fact) that Di. Gully was hanging about the neighbourhood. Constant quarrels naturally ensued, in which Mrs Bravo wa«, I fancy, generally in the wrong. At last one e\ening after dinner on a day w hen there had been an unusually bitter quarrel, Bravo was taken violently sick and ill, and died in a few hours. The doctors found that he had besn poisoned with an overdose of tartar emetic. Before he died he tried to say something, but failed. Throughout the ni£rbt Mis Bravo was, witnesses alleged, much tha worse for liquor. There were three theories with regard to the case : (1) That Mrs Bravo poisoned her husband by putting tartar emetic in his claiet. (2) That Bravo in a lit of passionate excitement after the quarrel with his wife deliberately committed suicide. (3) That in doctoring a bad tooth with laudanum he accidentally swallowed a quantity and took an oveidoae of the emetic in the hope of setting matters l ight. The inquest occupied seveial weeks. Mrs Bravo herself underwent a terrific cms? examination. George Lewi3 defended her with great ability, and the jury returned an open verdict. The inquiry had been so exhaustive that beyond offering a reward of £250 for the apprehension of the murderer nothing more was done. Mrs Bravo disappeared into tiie vortex. Three year.s later came the news of hor death with an intimation that she had been in the habit of drinking heavily, but without any further light being thrown upon the aflair.

THE DILKE SCANDAL AGAIN. Jt was authoritatively stated in the small smoking-room at the National Liberal Club on Tuesday evening, that a number of important facts in connection with the now almost forgotten Dilke case are shortly to be made public, with a view to, if possible, "whitewashing" Sir Charles sufficiently to enable him to re-enter the arena of politics. You may perhaps lemember that after the Crawford-Dilke divorce case ended so unsatisfactorily Sir Charles Dilke volunteered a private statement to a number of personal friends and acquaintances which satisfied them that, though not exactly a "Joseph," he was wholly innocent as regarded the estimable Mrs Crawford. Several gentlemen members of the N.L.C. then undertook to hunt up important evidence which Sir Charles indicated, and put matters generally in training for a re-hearing 1 . The Chairman of this Dilke committee was the late Mr Chesson (the Secretary of the Aboripnes Protection Society), who took up the matter con aviore and very f ,soon drew up a statement which, as he

said, ought to vindicate Dilke in the eyes of any honourable man of the world. Unfortunately, tho lawyers declared tho facts were not enough for them to work upon with any prospect of success. Then t]j6 question arose, should the statement be made public as things stood ? Whilst this was bein^r discussed poor Chesson, the mover of the whole business, died, and the matter temporarily lapsed. It has now been taken up again and Sir Charles's friends t-ecm resohed to risk publication. Sir Charles himself hungers for political life, and is miserable in his rotirement. He has tritd to throw himself into other work, but he doesn't enjoy it. The House of Commons was to him what the pfcage is to a great actor, and he is just ns lost as an Irving' foiccd into retirement in tho zenith of hid poweis would be. Most M. IVs assume Dilke's partial guilt, but take the line that as doubt hangs about the case, and as tho man has already been very severely punished, the old story should be forgotten. Stead alone really stands in the way of Dilke's rehabilitation.