Compare Documents

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.

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 separately.

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.

On Tuesday afternoon, Alfred Taylor was found guilty of committing acts of gross indecency with Charles and William Parker. Sentence was postponed. The Marquis of Queensberry was in attendance during the day and remained in court until the finish of the case.

On Wednesday morning, Oscar Wilde, 40, author, surrendered to take his trial a second time on an indictment charging him with certain misdemeanours. The Solicitor-General said the charges alleged against the prisoner extended over a period from February 1892, down to about March, 1893. He thought the jury, after they had heard the evidence, would be of opinion that the statements of the witnesses were fully corroborated, so far as they possibly could be. Oscar Wilde gave money to Wood in March, 1893, and Wood went to America. Edward Shelley detailed the circumstances under which he made the acquaintance of Oscar Wilde and as to his relationship with the prisoner, his evidence being a repitition of that given at the last trial. Wood and Charles Parker having given evidence, the case was adjourned.

On Thursday Wm, Parker, brother of Char. 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 indecenies 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 sample 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 again adjourned.