Compare Documents

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

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

The speeches for the defence and the reply for the Crown were concluded the previous day.

Mr. Justice Charles, in summing up, commented on the importance of the case to the accused and on the gravity of the charges. No unfavourable impression ought to be drawn from a work like "Dorian Gray," as, in his opinion, a writer ought not to be confounded with the persons he created; nor ought the result of the Queensberry case to weigh with them in the least. The case was an important one to the community. The testimony that had been adduced by some of the witnesses was obviously tainted evidence, and it required strong corroboration. It was a question for the Jury to decide if there existed independent and untainted corroboration. His Lordship dismissed from consideration the literary aspects of the case, being of opinion that Wilde was not responsible for the writings of others. If they were satisfied that the evidence supported the charges, they ought fearlessly to say so by their verdict. Wilde was a man of high intellectual gifts and education; Taylor belonged to a good class of persons, and they might think it unreasonable to suppose that they would have acted in the manner suggested. The Jury, however, could not disregard the evidence, and it was only upon the evidence that their verdict ought to be determined.

The Jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after an absence of three hours and three quarters, they returned into Court, when the foreman said that they were unable to agree to a verdict.

Sir E. Clarke asked that an acquittal be entered on the conspiracy counts, which the prosecution withdrew.

The Jury returned a formal verdict of not guilty in respect of these counts and two other counts.

Sir E. Clarke applied for bail for Wilde. He did not think that the Crown would oppose the application after what had occurred.

Mr. Clarke Hall applied for bail for Taylor.

Mr. Gill did not desire to say anything about the matter of bail.

His Lordship—I do not feel able to accede to the application.

Mr. Gill said that the case would certainly be tried again.

The Jury were discharged, and the case was ordered to stand over until the next Sessions.

The prisoners were removed in custody.

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.