Compare Documents

OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, and ALFRED TAYLOR, 33, were indicted under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act for the commission of acts of gross indecency, some of the counts charging Taylor with procuring the commission of those acts, and there were other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of those acts, the charge being one of misdemeanour

The greatest interest was taken into the case, the Court being crowded.

Mr. C.F. Gill and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde, and Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor. Mr. Leonard Kershaw held a watching brief.

Before the defendants were called upon to plead to the indictment,

SIR EDWARD CLARK submitted that they could not be called upon to plead to it. There were 25 counts in the indictment, some of them alleging the commission of acts under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and there were other counts charging the procuring of the commission of those acts, and also counts charging the defendants with conspiring to do those acts. Upon the charges of the commission of those acts and the procuring of the commission of those acts the defendants were by the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, competent witnesses, but upon the charge of conspiracy they were not competent witnesses. In these circumstances he submitted that the defendants could not be called upon to plead to the indictment, as on one set of charges contained in it they were competent witnesses, while on the other set of charges contained in it they could not be competent witnesses. He therefore demurred to the indictment as containing inconsistent counts.

Mr. C.F. GILL said that the prisoners were charged in the indictment with committing acts under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and they were clearly available witnesses if they desired to give evidence with regard to those charges. The only other charges in the indictment were charges of agreement to commit the acts which they were charged with committing under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said the question of substance was whether the counts could be lawfully joined, having regard to the present state of the law, in the same indictment. Unquestionably, prior to the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, counts for substantive misdemeanours and conspiracies to commit them might be lawfully joined, although, if justice should require it, the prosecution might be called upon to elect on which counts they would proceed. Could they be lawfully joined now? Had it made any difference in criminal pleading that on some of the counts defendants were competent witnesses and on others they were not? He was unable to agree with Sir Edward Clarke's view. He himself thought that, although the Legislature had prescribed that with reference to offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, defendants were competent witnesses, that circumstance had not altered the general law with reference to the joinder of counts for misdemeanour. Although he felt the inconvenience of the present state of things, he did not think the fact that the prisoners were competent witnesses on some of the counts and were not competent witnesses on the other counts authorized him to say that by law those counts could not be joined in the same indictment.

The prisoners pleaded "Not guilty."

SIB EDWARD CLARKE then asked Mr. Justice Charles to put the prosecution to the election whether they would proceed on the counts for conspiracy or on the other counts.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said he did not think he would be justified in putting the prosecution to the election on which counts they would proceed.

Mr. GILL, in opening the case, said he was sure the jury would dismiss from their minds anything which they might have heard or read with regard to the case, and would approach the consideration of it with minds perfectly fair and impartial, and that they would watch closely the evidence which would be put before them on the part of the prosecution. He then explained how it was that this prosecution had been instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The charges against the prisoners were in connexion with youths, who would be called before the jury. The charge against Taylor with regard to some of these youths, if not all of them, was that he acted for the other prisoner-- that he procured these youths in order that the prisoner Wilde might have an opportunity of committing acts of gross indecency with them. The prisoners were also charged with an agreement together that youths should be procured in order that the prisoner Wilde might commit those acts with them. On the counts under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, the defendants could be called as witnesses if they so desired.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said that the defendants were only competent witnesses on the counts under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885.

Mr. GILL, continuing, gave an outline of the circumstances of the case as alleged on the part of the prosecution, and briefly indicated what the evidence would be which would be adduced on the part of the prosecution.

Witnesses were then called and examined.

Charles Parker, 21 years of age, deposed to his introduction to Wilde by Taylor and to his subsequent relations with Wilde and Taylor in 1893. In August last year witness ceased to associate with Taylor, and did not see him again. Witness went into the country and enlisted.

In cross-examination by Sir Edward Clarke, Charles Parker said that he stated before the magistrate that he had received £30, part of a sum of money which had been extorted from a gentleman. Two men extorted the money from the gentleman--one of them being Wood and the other a man named Allen. Witness did not know that Wood had got £20 or £30 from Wilde in reference to some letters written by Wilde.

In cross-examination by Mr. GRAIN, the witness said that the sum of £30 which he had mentioned was the only sum he had received under similar circumstances. Wood had not suggested more than once that there were people from whom ho might obtain money in which witness might participate.

William Parker was the next witness examined. He said that the only occasion on which he met Wilde was at a dinner at a restaurant, when he and his brother Charles were introduced to him.

Evidence was then given describing the rooms occupied by Taylor in Little College-street. Taylor's visitors were young men from 16 years of age to his own age. The witness who gave the evidence describing Taylor's rooms never saw Wilde there.

Alfred Wood, who said he was formerly a clerk, was called and examined. His evidence was not concluded when the Court rose.

The hearing of the case was adjourned until to-morrow.

Oscar Wilde, 40, author, who surrendered to his bail, and Alfred Taylor, 38, were placed at the bar to take their trial again upon those counts of the indictment as to which the jury at he last Sessions were unable to agree upon a verdict. It will be remembered that the jury at the last Sessions found the defendants "Not guilty" upon the other counts in the indictment.

The Solicitor-General (Sir F. Lockwood, Q.C.), Mr, C.F. Gill, and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde; and Mr. J.P. Grain defended Taylor.

Sir Edward Clarke said that before the jury were sworn he thought he ought to make an application that the defendants should be separately tried. The ground for the application was that it was an application practically as of right in this case. On the occasion of the trial, which took place at the last Sessions the indictment contained 25 counts. Upon many of those counts a verdict of not guilty was entered, and there remained a certain number of counts not charging conspiracy, but charging the committal of offences by the defendants. There were only eight of those counts which affected Wilde, and in none of those counts was any charge made against Taylor. The other counts were counts against Taylor, and in nine of them was there any charge made against Wilde. He submitted, therefore, that inasmuch as the counts were separate with regard to the defendants, the defendants should be tried separately.

Mr. J. P. GRAIN, for Taylor, said that he concurred in everything which Sir Edward Clarke had said, and he made the same application.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the application. He said that he had pointed out to his learned friend that the result of trying the defendants separately would be that it would be necessary to take the case of Taylor first.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE.--I should object to that.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL repeated that it would be necessary to take Taylor's case first -- the sequence 'of events would necessitate that being done. Then what would be the nature of the inquiry? It would be an inquiry into the conduct of one person who was on his trial, and evidence would have to be given of the conduct of another person who was not on his trial. In these circumstances it appeared to him that those who were responsible for the drawing of the indictment

rightly considered the position and thought it would be an injustice to the person not on his trial that evidence should be given as to his conduct when he was not represented. He trusted that Mr. Justice Wills would not allow his learned friend to dictate to the prosecution as to the order in which the cases should be taken. Those who framed the indictment rightly included the defendants in the some indictment. The history of the cases were so bound up together that it would be impossible to inquire into the case of one without inquiring into the case of the other. He submitted that it would be the fairest course towards the defendants that there should be one trial, and he asked that they should be tried together.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE said that the ground upon which the Solicitor-General supported the course of trying the defendants together was that it would be unfair to the defendants to try them separately. The best defence, and Mr. Grain and he (Sir Edward Clarke) were distinctly of opinion that it would be an injustice to the defendants if they were tried together. He therefore urged that they should be tried separately.

Mr. Justice Wills said that he need hardly say that this matter had been present to his mind for consideration before he came there, because he did not affect to be entirely ignorant of what had taken place, and he anticipated that this application would be made. He had considered it carefully with regard to the evidence, and in view of what the evidence was he thought that it was much fairer that the defendants should be tried separately.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he proposed to take the case of Taylor first.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE asked that Wilde's case might be taken first. Wilde's name stood first in the indictment, and the first count was a count directed against him. It would be unjust to Wilde that his case should be tried immediately after the trial of the other defendant.

Mr. Justice Wills.- It should not make any difference.

Sir Edward Clarke.- It should not, my Lord.

Mr. Justice Wills.- I and the jury will do our very best to take care that one trial has no effect on the other.

Sir Edward Clarke.-I am sure you will do that, but there never was a case in which that duty was more difficult to discharge. I ask, inasmuch as Mr. Wilde's name is first in the indictment and the first count is one directed against him, that his case should be taken first.

Mr. Justice Wills.- I do not see how I can interfere with the discretion of the prosecution.

Sir Edward Clarke.- Then it would be convenient for me to at once make the application, which I shall repeat at the end of Taylor's case, and that is that the trial of Mr. Wilde shall stand over until the next Sessions.

Mr. Justice Wills suggested that the application had better be made when they saw the result of Taylor's case.

Sir Edward Clarke said that as there was no prospect of Wilde being called up to take his trial at present he asked that Mr. Justice Wills should allow him out on the same bail.

The Solicitor-General said he would leave the matter entirely in his Lordship's discretion.

Mr. Justice Wills granted the application.

Oscar Wilde was accordingly allowed out on the same bail.

The trial of Alfred Taylor upon the counts charging him with committing and procuring the commission of acts of gross indecency was then proceeded with.

The Solicitor-General, in opening the case, said that the defendant Taylor, who was 33 years of age, was educated at one of our large public schools and began life with a considerable amount of money which he had inherited. For a short time he held a commission in a Militia regiment, but apparently for some time before the time with which he (the Solicitor-General) should have to trouble the jury he had followed no occupation of any sort or kind. The Solicitor-General then proceeded to refer to the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution, and said that, of course, the jury would give the fairest and most impartial trial to the case.

Evidence was then given by Charles Parker and William Parker. Other witnesses were also called for the purpose of giving corroborative evidence.

At the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution,

Mr. Grain submitted that there was no corroboration, or at any rate no such corroboration as was requisite, and he contended that there was no case to go to the jury against Taylor.

The Solicitor-General contended that although there was no corroboration by an eye-witness there was, nevertheless, corroborative evidence.

Mr. Justice Wills said he thought that there was sufficient corroborative evidence.

Mr. Grain then addressed the jury for the defence of Taylor, contending that there was no corroborative evidence, and that the charge against him had not been proved. He should call Taylor as a witness, and he would give him a denial of the charge.

At the conclusion of Mr. Grain's speech,

The hearing of the case was adjourned until to-morrow. Mr. Justice Wills advising the jury to keep their minds open and not to allow any one to speak in reference to the case.