London, June 10.
The Maybrick poisoning case has occupied more space than any other one thing in the English papers this week and remains a question of absorbing interest. The evidence before the coroner's jury, on which has been based the verdict of wilful murder, is necessarily one sided. But people in a position to know the facts say that the details on which the accused relies to explain away the evidence against her will not hold water. In a letter produced at the close of the inquest and written to Mr. Brierly since her arrest, Mrs. Maybrick said: "Appearances are terribly against me, but before God I am innocent."
Unless her friends in America come to her assistance she will have no money to employ counsel to conduct her defense, for the solicitors who defended her at the inquest were employed on the understanding that the brothers of the deceased would pay the expenses of the defense out of Mr. Maybrick's estate. This the brothers, however, positively decline to do, and the counsel have, in consequence, expressed their intention of withdrawing from the case. The sole benefit which Mrs. Maybrick can derive from her husband's estate under any circumstances is from certain insurance policies, to the amount of $125,000. If convicted of the murder she cannot even claim this. The only property to which she is entitled in her own right is a half interest in a house on Fourteenth street, New York. This house is mortgaged for more than its value. But it is let for a term of years at a rent which, after paying the mortgage interest and expenses, provides about $700 yearly between Mrs. Maybrick and her mother. Mrs. Maybrick, however. has only a life interest in this house, which reverts to her children after her death.
Owing to the expert testimony required on the trial, the cost of the defense is sure to reach at least $7,000, and may possibly amount to three times as much.
The case comes up for trial next August at the assizes.
