The Queen Against Owen

AUTHOR OF ‘THE PRINCE OF BALKISTAN’
A NEW EDITION
‘An unmistakable success. Regarded simply as a story, we have not for a long while read anything more intensely dramatic. It would compel notice for the mere manner of its telling. Not often has an author who has boldly departed from the traditional lines of the writer of fiction so completely vindicated his method. There is high quality in this book, with its vivid glimpses of life, and its clever characterization.... Altogether, a notable book; and if its popularity be at all commensurate with its merits, it will have a great vogue.’— Sun.
‘The narrative never flags.... A realistic representation of a criminal trial.’— Athenæum.
‘Lovers of exciting fiction, powerful, original, and dramatic, should read “The Queen against Owen.” Narrative after narrative, somewhat in the Wilkie Collins manner, draws you on until the mystery that surrounds the crime—which remains a mystery almost to the very end—disappears, and then you draw a breath of relief, but not before.’— Sporting Life.
I take the opportunity of a second edition of this little sketch to point out a rather curious fact in connection with the numerous comments which were made in the press on the evidence presented against the heroine. My object in writing the story was, naturally, to so balance the evidence as to leave it open to my jury to return either verdict, and thus keep the reader in a state of mild suspense during the progress of the trial. How far I succeeded may be gathered from the following extracts:
‘A jury that required to deliberate at all in such a case ought to have been hanged.’ —Brief.
‘The way in which the feeblest of cases is worked up to a verdict of guilty is a trifle ridiculous, and a slander on judge, bar, and even jury.’ —Leeds Mercury.
‘It is absurd to suppose that upon such evidence any judge and jury could have convicted her of murder.’ —Vanity Fair.
‘A tangle of circumstantial evidence which is supposed to be conclusive, but on which we feel confident that no English jury would convict.’ —New Zealand Mail.