Compare Documents

At the Central Criminal Court, London, yesterday, before Mr Justice Wills, Oscar Wilde, 40, author, and Alfred Taylor, 33, of no occupation, were indicted a second time for certain misdemeanours.

Sir Edward Clarke, Q. C. applied that the cases of the two defendants might be taken seperately.

The Solicitor General said the results of the defendants being so tried would be that matter would have to be introduced which might be unfair to the other defendant not on his trial.

The Judge said that, having carefully considered the matter, his notion was that the case ought to be taken seperately.

Sir Edward Clarke applied next that the case of Wilde be taken first.

The Judge said that he could not interfere with the discretion of the Solicitor General in this matter.

The Solicitor General elected to proceed with the case of Taylor first.

Sir Edward Clarke desired to make a further application, having in view the course which the Crown had taken--viz, that the trial of Mr Wilde be taken at the next session.

The Judge said that the application had better be made at the conclusion of the case of Taylor.

The Solicitor General opened the case and evidence was taken.

Mr Grain addressed the Court on behalf of Taylor and had not concluded his speech when the Court adjourned.

Before leaving, his Lordship asked the Jury to keep an open mind on the case, and not to form any conclusion until they had heard everything that had to be said on the case.

At the Central Criminal Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Charles, Oscar Wilde, aged 40, author, and Alfred Taylor, aged 33, of no occupation, were severally indicted for certain misdemeanours under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885.

Mr. C. F. Gill with Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Public Prosecutor; Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde; Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor; and Mr. Leonard Kershaw watched the case on behalf of certain parties interested.

Before the prisoners were called upon to plead, Sir Edward Clarke moved to quash certain counts of the indictment on the ground that they had been unlawfully joined. In regard to certain of these counts, the Legislature made the accused a competent but not a compellable witness. As to the counts for conspiracy contained in the indictment, and joined unlawfully, as he submitted, to those for alleged offences in regard to which the accused could give evidence, they did not admit of that provision, and consequently, if on the hearing of the first set of charges the accused gave evidence, he would be cross-examined, and the result of that cross-examination might tend to prejudice the case in regard to the subsequent charge, that of conspiracy, in respect of which the accused could not give evidence.

Mr. Gill contended that the counts were in law properly joined, and in support of his contention he referred to the case of "The Queen v. Owen" to show that the joining of the counts for conspiracy with the counts preferred under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was not inconsistent.

Mr. Justice Charles admitted that the law as it stood presented inconveniences, but he could not concur with the view expressed by the learned counsel (Sir Edward Clarke) that the counts had been improperly joined, as, in his opinion, it was not in accordance with the general law applicable to the indictment.

Sir Edward Clarke asked next that the prosecution should elect upon which of the set of charges they would proceed, whether the conspiracy charge or the charge in regard to which the accused were competent witnesses.

Mr. Justice Charles said that it was impossible to put the prosecution to the election asked for.

Mr. Gill having related the facts of the case to the Jury, evidence was given by witnesses named Charles Parker, William Parker, Alfred Wood, and others. The case for the prosecution had not concluded when the Court adjourned till to-day.