o’clock told Callery to throw away the sample in accordance with the matron’s orders, which Callery did. The bottle in which that sample was taken was not specially identified, though it must have remained on the premises. It ought to have been produced, because, if arsenic was detected in the sample, the bottle of Valentine’s meat juice would have been identified by that means, and it would have been shown that the arsenic was in the meat juice which Mrs. Maybrick had taken into the dressing-room. On the other hand, as all the bottles which were in the house were analyzed and found free of arsenic, there is negative evidence that there was no arsenic in the sample taken. MISDIRECTION IN EXCLUDING CORROBORATION OF PRISONER’S STATEMENT Now the serious, most serious, consideration of counsel is asked for in comparing the evidence of these three witnesses--Gore, Callery, and Michael Maybrick--as given at the coroner’s inquest, as it appears in the coroner’s depositions, at the magisterial inquiry, as it appears in the magistrates’ depositions, and as given at the trial. It will be seen that there are great discrepancies as to the place in the room from which Michael Maybrick took the half-used bottle in which Mr. Davies, the analyst, subsequently detected one-tenth of a grain of arsenic in solution. It is suggested that Mr. Michael’s evidence at the inquest is the true account of where he got the bottle, and that his evidence at the trial is _cooked_, to suit the evidence of Gore, _and that the identity of the bottle is not established_. The statement, which in her statement to the jury Mrs. Maybrick said she was prevented by the policeman from making to Mrs. Briggs, the moment that person told her about arsenic being found in the meat juice, was communicated by Mrs. Maybrick at once to her solicitors, Mr. Arnold and Richard Cleaver; and it is submitted that it was a _misdirection_ of the judge to exclude their evidence in corroboration of such a material and important fact in her favor, _and a misdirection in refusing to allow corroboration in that way_ of what was in evidence, and did corroborate it--thereby constituting a matter which the jury should have had before them, as having a bearing on her statement. MISDIRECTIONS TO JURY TO DRAW ILLEGAL INFERENCES The judge referred to the Valentine’s meat-juice incident, the most vital point in the trial, in the following extraordinary manner at the end of his summing-up: