Compare Documents

The trial of Mr Oscar Wilde was resumed at the Old Bailey, London, yesterday.

William Parker, brother of Charles Parker, was first called, and was followed by witnesses from the Savoy hotel, some of the evidence not having been given before. The prisoner's evidence in the Queensberry's trial was then read by counsel. At five minutes past three the Solicitor-General intimated that the case for the prosecution had closed.

Sir Edward Clarke, for the defence, first submitted that on the counts charging the prisoner with indecencies with persons unknown at the Savoy hotel on the 9th and 20th March, 1893, there was no evidence to go to the jury, on the ground that the evidence of the chambermaids was uncorroborated.

Mr Justice Wills thought his duty led him to submit these counts to the jury.

Sir Edward Clarke submitted in regard to Shelley that there was no corroboration.

His Lordship said Shelley must be treated as an accomplice, and at present he could see no corroboration. This charge would therefore be withdrawn.

Sir E. Clarke said in the case of Wood he should again submit that there was no corroboration of the charge.

The Solicitor-General protested against the charges being withdrawn other than by the jury under the direction of the Judge.

In the case of Wood he submitted that there was simple corroboration.

His Lordship said he should leave this case to the jury, but he should point out to them in what direction it went.

The case was adjourned until to-day.

London, Thursday Evening.

The trial of Mr Oscar Wilde on charges of indecency was resumed before Mr Justice Wills at the Old Bailey today. The public gallery was again crowded long before before the time fixed for the opening of the proceedings. The solicitor-general and Mr C F Gill, for the prosecution, were early arrivals in court, and they were quickly followed by Sir E Clarke, Q C, and Mr Travers Humphreys, counsel for the prisoner.

Mr Oscar Wilde entered the court shortly before 10 30, and for some time stood at the foot the of jury-box conversing with the Rev Stewart Headlam. His appearance created some little stir in the gallery, the occupants of which eagerly craned their necks in order obtain a view of him. Soon after Lord Douglas of Hawick joined the group, and they remained in earnest conversation until his lordship took his seat on the bench. The prisoner then stepped into the dock, and was again accommodated with a chair. He sat with his elbow resting on the ledge in front of him, and, while listening to the evidence, stroked his lips with the back of his hand. He looked somewhat worried and anxious.

The Solicitor-General at once called William Parker, who said that he was a brother of the witness Charles Parker. In March, 1893, he lived with his brother in Hunter street, Brunswick square. They occupied one room. One night they went to the St James’s Restaurant, Piccadilly, where they were accosted by a man whom they afterwards knew to be Alfred Taylor. Witness afterwards went to 13 Little College street, Westminster, and saw Taylor there. In consequence of the conversation with Taylor witness and his brother met Taylor on the next day, and Taylor took them to Kittner’s Restaurant.

The Solicitor-General — Up to this time had you seen Oscar Wilde? No.

Were you taken to a private room? Yes.

Was anyone else there? No. Oscar Wilde came in afterwards. We were introduced to him by Taylor.

I believe dinner was prepared for four? Yes.

Did the dinner consist of many courses? Four or five.

Was wine provided? Yes — champagne, coffee, and liqueurs.

Did you hear Oscar Wilde make a statement to your brother? Yes.

After that did you leave? Yes, shortly after this.

Did you go into the country? Yes.

Sir E Clarke first cross-examined witness as to the employment he had been in, and then asked — Do you suggest yo know your brother was going for an indecent purpose? As I understood it from him.

You were perfectly sober, I suppose? I was.

You represent that at the end of that dinner you heard of such a proposal made t your brother and did not interfere to prevent it? I did not.

Had you intended to do the same sort of thing yourself? I had.

Margaret Bancroft said that she lived 50 Park walk, Chelsea. She remembered Charles Parker coming to lodge there. He occupied one room. One night she heard a cab drive up and two men entered the house and went up to Parker’s room. After being in the house for twenty minutes or half an hour they went away in the cab. Witness looked out of the window and saw Wilde getting into the cab. The other man was Parker. They went away together. Witness made communication to landlady, and Parker left.

Cross-examined  — Witness believed Parker went away in a cab, but she was not certain. She did not hear him come upstairs again. She had never seen Wilde at the house before. She had seen him about half a dozen times previously, but had never spoken to him.

Lucy Rumsby, landlady of 50 Park walk, said she gave Parker notice in consequence of the statement made to her by the last witness. At this point the Marquis of Queensberry entered the court and took a seat from which he had a good view of the dock and the witness box.

Sophia Grey, of 3 Chapel street, Chelsea, said she remembered Alfred Taylor staying at that address in the autumn on 1893. She also remembered Charles Parker come there and staying with him. On one occasion Wilde came to see Parker.

Cross-examined — That was when Taylor had met with an accident; he had been run over by a cab.

Thomas Price said that he was employed at 10 and 11 St James’s place. Wilde occupied two rooms at that address from October, 1893, to April, 1894, a sitting room with a bedroom opening out of it. Taylor called there once and Charles Parker called five or six times. Wilde slept in those rooms about a dozen times.

Police Inspectors Richards and Brockwell again told the story of prisoner’s arrest at the Cadogan Hotel, after the conclusion of the Queensberry trial.

The Solicitor-General next proposed to read portions of the evidence given by Wilde in cross-examination in the Queensberry case.

Sir E Clarke submitted that the prisoner was examined at the previous trial, and that his evidence on that occasion ought to be rend.

The solicitor-general said that was not an objection to his reading the cross-examination in the Queensberry case.

Sir E Clarke said he should be entitled to read the evidence given in examination in chief.

This was agreed to, and Sir Edward Clarke then read portions of the evidence given by Wilde in examination-in-chief in the Queensberry case.

The Solicitor General afterwards read portions of Wilde’s evidence given in cross-examination.

The Court then adjourned for luncheon.

On the Court resuming.

The reading of Wilde’s evidence was continued by Mr Avory. The prisoner, leaning over the dock, had a consultation with Mr Charles Matthews, and then, taking his seat facing the jury, resumed the attitude he has adopted throughout the trial. When Mr Avory sat down, Sir Edward Clarke proceeded to read the evidence given by Wilde in re-examination. At five minutes past three the Solicitor-General intimated that the case for the prosecution had closed.

Sir Edward Clarke, for the defence, first submitted that on the counts charging prisoner with indecencies with persons unknown at the Savoy Hotel on the 9th and 20th of March, 1893, there was no evidence to go to the jury on the ground that the evidence of the chambermaids was uncorroborated.

Mr Justice Wills thought his duty led him to submit these counts to the jury.

Sir Edward Clarke submitted in regard to Shelley that there was no corroboration.

His Lordship said Shelley must be treated as an accomplice, and at present he could see no corroboration.

The Solicitor-General submitted that Shelley was not an accomplice, and if he was there was corroboration.

His Lordship said he still had Shelley as an accomplice, and there was no corroboration.

This charge would, therefore, be withdrawn.

Sir E Clarke said he would ask his lordship to take the same course, and on the same ground, in the case of Wood. There was no corroboration as to the evidence of Wood with regard to the conduct of Mr Wilde which he alleged took place on one occasion at Tite street.

The Solicitor-General submitted that in the case of Wood there was ample corroboration. He entered his protest against these cases being decided other than try the tribunal which had to judge the facts. He did not know that there was any rule of law that took away from a juror the right to have laid before him for consideration questions of the evidence even of an accomplice. It had never been laid down that it was absolutely end entirely within the province of a judge, except to this extent — that it was in the province of the judge to put that evidence before the jury with observation, which were generally accepted by juries as coming from so high an authority. The decision upon the evidence should be the decision of the jury, subject to that direction from the judge. Reverting to the case of Wood, he submitted that the evidence as to the extraordinary war in which Wilde first met Wood, as to his talking Wood to a private supper-room, and as to his giving him money, and getting him out of the country, was ample corroboration of Wood’s story. He thought it showed that there were some relations between this man and Oscar Wilde that made Wilde anxious to get him out of the way. There that was a strong element of corroboration.

Sir E Clarke having replied, His Lordship said this was a different case from the last. He had no doubt of the correctness of the view that he had acted upon, namely that the practice of two hundred years as his brother Charles said in the last case, was that, if the case rested upon the unsupported testimony of an accomplice, it ought not to be left to the jury. One of the question of whether there was sufficient corroboration, he should take a different view to what he did in the last case, but he should have to tell the jury he thought it was a proper case to leave to them, and to point out in what direction he thought it led.

The court then adjourned until tomorrow.