LIVERPOOL POISONING CASE.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 396, 24 August 1889, Page 6

LIVERPOOL POISONING CASE.

Fuller repoits of the summing up of Sir James Stephen in the Maybrick poisoning case, at the Liverpool Assizes, show that although the fiist part of the speech was favourable to Mrs Maybrick, the concluding portion was* decidedly adverse. This accounted for the Judge being mobbed and hooted by the assembled crowd when he left the Court. The feeling in Liverpool is so strongly in favour of Mrs Maybtick that it has been deemed advisable to afford Sir James Stephen police protection. He will be guarded during the remainder of his stay in Liverpool by a force of 15b policemen. Mrs Maybrick attributes the verdict of guilty returned by the jury to Sir James Stephen's severe strictures on her infidelity. She, however, expresses confidence that she will be reprieved. Petitions in favour of a reprieve have been extensively signed in Liverpool, among the signatures being th^se of leading merchants and barristers. Tnese petitions have been forwarded to the House of Commons, the petitioners making a stiong point of the fact that the medical evidence at the trial was very divergent and conflicting. When the petitions were presented in thejrlouse of Commons last night Mr Henry Matthews, Q.C., the Home Secretary," said that they would receive full consideration. He remarked upon the outrage to Sir James Stephen, and said that it was un-English to mob a judge for doings his duty. This remark was loudly cheered by hon. members. In this sensational poisoning case the deceased, James Maybrick, was aged 50, and was a cotton merchant at Liverpool. Mrs Maybrick, who has been sentenced to death, is 26 years of age, the daughter of Baroness Rogue and the stepdaughter of Baron "Rogue. Mrs Maybrick's name before marriage was Florence Elizabeth Chandler, and she was daughter of a banker in Mobile. Deceased met her while returning from America, and married her, it is reported, after a fortnight's acquaintance. Mrs Maybrick is said to have a fortune of her own. A quarrel took place between the couple over the relations of Mrs Maybrick with a Mr A. Brierley, of Liverpool, and the deceased shortly afterwards became ill. His brother, who visited the house, had his suspicions aroused, and called in two doctors and another

nurse. In the course of bis evidence the brother said that in consequence of a communication from the nurse he removed a bottle of brandy which was among the medicines in the bedroom. He also took possession of a bottle of meat extract in the room and gave them to the doctor. He then took a walk in the garden. On returning to the bedroom he fouud Mrs Maybrick changing some whisky from one bottle to another, and changing the labels. He remonstrated with her and 'asked her how she dare do it, and 'she replied it was because of the sediment in the bottle. The nurses were again changed ;, but his brother sank rapidly and died on May 11, Raying been very delirious. The day his brother died the children's nurse gave him a parcel and a box. The parcel was in brown paper and was labelled, in writing, "Arsenic poison for cats." In the parcel were also four small bottles containing white fluid, tne labels being scratched off. The parcel was afterwards given to the police. A recent cable stated that fresh evidence in favour of the accused was given. This evidence was foreshadowed by a London paper, which had the following :—: — When Mrs Maybrick isfput on her trial before a jury an important witness will be forthcoming whose name has not yeb been mentioned. He is a gentleman named Bateson,* who is connected with a large London cotton firm, but is at present resident at Memphis, Tennessee. Three years ago Mr Maybrick, accompanied by his wife, visited the United States and spent some -time in Virginia. Mr Bateson was on intimate terms with Mr Maybrick, and, indeed, lived, in the same house with him for some time. He

was cognisant of a habit, formed by Mr May brick of habitually taking arsenic, and more than once during his sojourn in Norfolk he warned him against fche probable consequences. The peculiarity was also known to a Dr. Ward, who lived in Norfolk, and Mr Bateson will swear to a conversation in which he heard Dr. Ward, who is now dead, warn Mr Maybrick that if he continued the practice he would certainly kill himself. Even more striking than this sworn testimony will be a number of sworn copies of prescriptions which Mr Maybrick had made up at a druggist's shop in Norfolk during his residence.