Compare Documents

The trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor was resumed this morning at the Old Bailey before Mr. Justice Charles. The court was again crowded.

Mr. C. F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A Gill appeared for the prosecution; Sir E. Clarke, Mr. C. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys for the prisoner Wilde; Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor for Taylor; and Mr. Leonard Kershaw watched the case on behalf of the witness Sidney Mavor.

Sir Edward Clarke and Mr. Grain had a consultation, after which Taylor had an interview with his counsel. At the same time Mr. Humphries, Wilde’s solicitor, passed to the cells and had an interview with his client. When Mr. Mathews arrived Sir E. Clarke entered into conversation with him. It is understood that the question discussed had reference to whether the accused should be put into the witness box. On the judge taking his seat Mr. Gill said he should not ask for a verdict on the counts for conspiracy. Sir Edward Clarke thereupon claimed that a verdict of not guilty should be entered. The Judge said he could not agree to Sir E. Clarke’s request, but acceded to Mr. Gill's. Sir E. Clarke then addressed the jury and said he should call Wilde as a witness.

At the Central Criminal Court this morning Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor were placed in the dock before Mr Justice Charles to answer a series of indictments charging them with committing offences under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Wilde is described as an author, and Taylor as of no occupation.

Mr. C. F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A. Gill appeared to prose­cute on behalf of the Treasury. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C, M.P., Mr. C. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde, and Mr. J. P. Grain amid Mr. T. Taylor the prisoner Taylor. Mr. Kershaw holds a watching brief in the interests of the witness Sidney Mavor.

Sir Edward Clarke took exception to the prisoners being called upon to plead. There were, he said, twenty-five counts in the indictment. Some of these were taken under the Criminal Amendment Act, and others were charges of conspiracy. He submitted that the defendants were entitled to be put upon their trial on charges of conspiracy, under which they could not give evidence, or else under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, under which they could give evidence. The question had only arisen once before. If the prisoners were called upon to answer certain of the acts, those being conspiracy, they could not be called as witnesses. Nor would it be disputed that under the eleventh section of the Act of 1885 they were rendered competent witnesses. Under the charges of conspiracy where two persons were indicted one was not competent to give evidence for the other. The Act of 1885 made them competent but not compellable witnesses.

Mr. Gill submitted that the decision in the Queen v. Owen applied in this case. There was nothing which prevented tile prisoners from being available witnesses and liable to cross-examination.

Sir E. Clarke contended that they could not join a felony and a misdemeanor, as there was a different mode of trial in each case.

The Judge said unquestionably before the passing of the Act of 1885, these counts might have been lawfully joined together. Sir Edward Clarke's objection was overruled.

Both prisoners then pleaded not guilty.