Compare Documents

At the Old Bailey, London, yesterday, before Mr Justice Charles, the trial was resumed of Oscar Wilde, aged 40, and Alfred Taylor, aged 33, on an indictment charging them with certain misdemeanours.

Mr Justice Charles began his summing up to the jury by remarking that the prosecuting counsel had acted wisely in withdrawing the charge of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guilty. It was a rule of law that the uncorroborative testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the cease in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins, and Wood had been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices, the jury, in considering the details of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on Wilde v. Queensberry, and passing to the literary part of the case, said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unfavorable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorien Gray." In the last century noble minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for "The Priest and the Acolyte," the work of another. He called particular attention to Wilde's answers given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgement. The learned Judge next approached consideration of the charges in the order of their dates, Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. Long quotations were read by his Lordship from Shelley's letters, in one of which the writer said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane." To deal with Shelley's evidence would be an interesting and responsible part of the jury's duty. There was proof of excitability, and Shelley had told a nauseous tale, but to talk of him as an insane man would be to exaggerate the effect of the letters. His Lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimilico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy hotel incident was a most anxious part of inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the the character of the Crown witnesses. After a reference to the part played by Wood in the matter of the Douglas and Wilde letters, his Lordship reviewed the evidence against Taylor in respect of the alleged acts of indecency with Charles and William Parker. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at 1.35.

At 5.15 the jury returned into Court and informed his Lordship that they could not agree upon certain of the questions submitted to them.

Replying to questions later, the foreman said there was no possibility of agreement.

Upon the count of conspiracy his Lordship had early in the day directed a verdict of not guilty, and a formal finding was now arrived at on this and other minor counts, but the Judge observed that all material questions were unhappily undecided. He discharged the jury and refused to bail Wilde and Taylor, informing Sir E. Clarke that the application must be made in chambers.

Mr Gill, who appeared for the Treasury in the prosecution, notified that the case would be retried next Session.

The prisoners, who had been brought back to court for the purpose of hearing the result, were then removed in custody. Wilde engaged in conversation for a few minutes with one of his legal representatives.

At the Central Criminal Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Charles, the trial was resumed of Oscar Wilde, 40, author, and Alfred Taylor, 33, of no occupation, on an indictment charging them with certain misdemeanours.

Sir. C. F. Gill and Mr. H. Avory prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C, Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Oscar Wilde; Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Alfred Taylor.

Mr. C. F. Gill intimated that he intended to withdraw from the Jury the counts of the indictment for conspiracy. This course would enable his learned friend, Sir Edward Clarke, to put Oscar Wilde in the witness-box.

Mr. Justice Charles said that after the evidence that had been given, he thought that there was not anything to support the counts for the alleged conspiracy.

Sir Edward Clarke said that had he known that the Crown intended to withdraw the conspiracy counts, he should have applied for the trial of his client to be taken separately.

Sir Edward Clarke, in his address to the Jury, on behalf of Oscar Wilde, commented in strong terms on the adverse criticism of a certain portion of the Press on the case affecting his client. It was grossly unfair to an accused person, calculated to imperil the administration of justice, and in the highest degree prejudicial to the case of his client, and disgraceful. In some respects the importing into the case of matters for which Mr. Wilde was not in the least responsible was an unfair proceeding on the part of the prosecution. He invited the Jury to discard every element of prejudice, and to judge the conduct of his client in a fair and impartial manner. Could they believe that, if he were a guilty man, Mr. Wilde would have faced such accusations in a Court, and have invited, as he had done, the fullest inquiry into his relations with the different persons brought forward for the purposes of this prosecution? It was impossible that the Jury could believe the testimony adduced, it being in the highest degree improbable that Mr. Wilde misconducted himself. He gave an unqualified denial to the whole of the accusations. After hearing Mr. Wilde's denial on oath he ventured to think that if any doubt existed in the minds of the Jury as to the guilt or the innocence of Mr. Wilde, it would be at once removed.

Oscar Wilde gave a denial on oath to all the allegations made against him.

Alfred Taylor, called by Mr. Grain, gave also an entire denial to the charges against him. He was, he said, educated at Marlborough, his late father being connected with a very large business. When he came of age he received a legacy of £45,000.

Sir Edward Clarke, continuing his speech, commented on the literature branch of the case, and said that the importance put upon it by the Crown was unwarranted, for Mr. Wilde was not the author, or in any way responsible for its production. The courage that he had shown in facing the charges from the first was in favour of the theory of his innocence. He dealt at some length with the various points in the evidence against his client, and urged the Jury to disregard altogether, as unworthy of belief, the testimony of the tainted witnesses. Did the Jury believe that such evidence was honest and entitled to be regarded as true? They were dealing with matters which happened a long time ago, and in respect of which it was impossible to produce evidence beyond Mr. Wilde's positive denial. He asked the Jury to allow their judgment to be affected only with regard to testimony that was reliable, to guard themselves from the prejudice which floated about the case, but which he trusted had to some extent been dissipated, and to apply their minds to the test to be put upon the evidence. If they did this, he trusted that the the result would be to gratify a thousand hopes, and to release one of the most renowned and accomplished men of letters of to-day from a most grave charge and to clear society of a stain.

Mr. Grain, in defence of Taylor, argued that the evidence of the principal witnesses was tainted and wholly uncorroborated, and that under all the circumstances, as the testimony of these persons was unreliable, it was impossible for the Jury to convict; and, therefore, he asked for an acquittal of Taylor. The case against him rested solely on the statements of a set of blackmailers and on prejudice.

Mr. Gill replied on behalf of the Crown. The trial was adjourned until to-day, when the learned Judge will sum up.