Compare Documents

The trial of OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, and ALFRED TAYLOR, 33, upon an indictment charging them under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with the commission of acts of gross indecency, some of the counts charging Taylor with procuring the commission of those acts, and other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring to commit and to procure the commission of those acts, was resumed.

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.

The witness Alfred Wood, who gave evidence yesterday, was now cross-examined by Sir EDWARD CLARKE. The witness said that he told Wilde that he wanted to go to America to get away from certain persons, and it was for that reason that Wilde gave him £30. He went to America and got employment there. He subsequently returned to England. After his return from America witness and Allen between them got £300 from a gentleman, of which sum witness had £175. Allen might have given Charles Parker £30 of it.

Frederick Atkins gave evidence as to Wilde's having asked him whether he would go to Paris with him as his private secretary, to which he replied he would. He went with Wilde to Paris.

In cross-examination by Sir EDWARD CLARKE the witness said that no act of indecency ever took place between him and Wilde. Witness and a man named Burton had never got money from men by threatening to accuse them. On June 10, 1891, witness and Burton did not get a large sum of money from a gentleman. Burton did not demand money from a gentleman, and witness did not take the gentleman's watch and chain and give it to Burton. Witness and Burton were not taken to Rochester-row Police-station, and witness did not give up the watch and chain there. A gentleman did not give Burton a cheque for £200, to witness's knowledge. Burton did not extort a large sum of money from two American gentlemen.

Sidney Arthur Mavor stated that he was introduced to Wilde at a dinner at a restaurant. Some time after he went to the Albemarle Hotel one evening as Wilde's guest. Nothing improper took place between them.

Edward Shelley, a young man who had been in the employment of a firm of publishers, said that in 1891 Wilde came to his employers' shop on business. Witness became acquainted with Wilde, and in 1892 dined with him at the Albemarle Hotel.

In cross-examination by Sir EDWARD CLARKE the witness, alluding to a passage in a letter written by him, said he had the impression at the time he wrote it that people thought he was not quite right in his mind; he had been overstudying, and he felt that his mind was overstrained and that he wanted rest.

The witness Frederick Atkins was re-called, and, in reply to further questions from SIR EDWARD CLARKE, he said that on June 10, 1891, Burton and he were taken to Rochester-row Police-station for hitting a gentleman. The gentleman declined to prosecute, and Burton and witness were allowed to go. The reason why witness said that Burton and he were not taken to Rochester-row Police-station was because he did not remember.

The hearing of the case was adjourned until Monday.

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.