Compare Documents

The trial of Mr. Oscar Wilde on charges of indecency was resumed before Mr. Justice Wills at the Old Bailey to-day. The public gallery was again crowded long before the time fixed for the opening of the proceedings. The Solicitor-General and Mr. C.F. Gill, for the prosecution, were early arrivals in court, and they were quickly followed by Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., and Mr. Travers Humphreys, counsel for the prisoner. Mr. Oscar Wilde entered the court shortly before 10.30, and for some time stood at the foot of the jury box conversing with the Rev. Stewart Headlam. His appearance created some little stir in the gallery, the occupants of which eagerly craned their necks in order to obtain a view of him. Soon afterwards Lord Douglas of Hawick joined the group, and they remained in earnest conversation until his Lordship took his seat on the bench. The prisoner then stepped into the dock, and was again accommodated with a chair. He sat with his elbow resting on the ledge in front of him, and while listening to the evidence stroked his his lips with the back of his hands. He looked somewhat worried and anxious.

The Solicitor-General at once called William Parker, who said he was the brother of the witness Charles Parker He described a dinner given by Mr. Oscar Wilde. Four were present.

Did the dinner consist of many courses?- Four or five.

Was wine provided?- Yes; champagne, coffee, and liqueurs.

Did you hear Oscar Wilde make a statement to your brother? -Yes.

After that did you leave?- Yes.

Shortly after this did you go into the country?- Yes.

Sir E. Clarke first cross-examined witness as to the employment he had been in, and then asked: Do you suggest you knew your brother was going for a certain purpos?- As I understood it from him.

You were perfectly sober, I suppose?- I was.

You represent that at the end of that dinner you heard of such a proposal made to your brother, and did not interfere to prevent it?- I did not.

Had you intended to do the same sort of thing yourself?- I had.

Charles Robinson was the next witness. He was a book-keeper at the Savoy Hotel.

Margaret Potter, chambermaid at the Savoy Hotel, who attended to the rooms occupied by prisoner and Lord Alfred Douglas, gave evidence of a similar nature to that she gave at the previous trial.

Alice Saunders, another chambermaid at the Savoy Hotel, said she remembered Mr. Wilde staying there in March, 1893. The last witness called her attention to certain things in Wilde's rooms.

Sir E. Clarke: Did you make a statement about this one day last week?- Yes, last Friday evening.

Yon were not called at the previous trial?- No, sir.

Anton Miggi, a masseur, was next examined by Mr. Gill. He repeated his previous evidence.

Emile Becker, waiter at the Savoy Hotel in March, 1893, said he waited on Mr. Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas.

Mr. Gill: During the time Wilde was staying there have you seen young men in those rooms? -Yes, sir.

How many young men did you see go there during that time? -About five.

Have you served supper in Mr. Wilde's room when any young man his been there? -Yes. On one occasion there was a young man there. He was dark looking.

And you served drinks there when young men were there? -Yes.

Crass-examined by Sir E. Clarke: Witness said he first made a statement as to this matter on Friday last. He was not examined at the last trial.

And yet you say you remember a supper and champagne rather more than two years ago? -Yes.

I wonder whether you took any interest in the previous trial. Did you read the papers? -I read a paper.

Did you happen to see in the papers that Charles Parker had had chicken and champagne for supper? -No.

How many sitting-rooms had you to look after? -Seven.

Have you seen Charles Parker here? -I have been told that this was Charles Parker.

Have you seen him? -Yes.

Did you recognise him? -No, sir.

Who told you it was Charles Parker? -Some of the witnesses told me it was Charles Parker.

Mrs. Perkins, of Southsea, formerly housekeeper at the Savoy Hotel, gave additional evidence.

Margaret Bancroft said she lived at 50, Park Walk, Chelsea. She remembered Charles Parker coming to lodge there. He occupied one room. One night she heard a cab drive up, and two men entered the house and went up to Parker's room. After being in the house for 20 minutes or half an hour they went away in the cab. Witness looked out of the window and saw Wilde getting into the cab. The other man was Parker. They went away together. Witness made a communication to the landlady, and Parker left.

Cross-examined: Witness believed the party went away in the cab, but she was not certain. She did not hear him come upstairs again. She had never seen Wilde at the house before. She had seen him about half a dozen times previously, but had never spoken to him.

Lucy Rumsby, landlady of 50, Park Walk, said she gave Parker notice in consequence of the statement made to her by the last witness.

At this point the Marquess of Queensberry entered the court, and took a seat from which he had a good view of the dock and witness-box.

After other evidence, Sir Edward Clarke read portions of the evdenee given by Wilde in examination in chief in the Queensberry case. The Solicitor-General afterwards read portions of Wilde's evidence given in cross-examination.

The Court then adjourned for luncheon.

(Continued on Page 4.)

On the Court resuming the reading of Wilde's evidence was concluded by Mr. Avory, and Sir E. Clarke proceeded to read the evidence given by Wilde in re-examination.

It was five minutes past three when the reading of the evidence was concluded, and the Solicitor-General then intimated that the case for the prosecution was concluded.

Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., then addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner.

His Lordship said the case ought to go to the jury.

The trial was again adjourned.

London, Thursday.

The trial of Oscar Wilde was resumed at the Old Bailey to-day. The prisoner entered the court shortly before 10.30, and stood conversing for some time with Lord Douglas of Hawick and the Rev Stewart Headlam. He afterwards entered the dock, and sat with his elbow on the ledge before him while listening to the evidence.

William Parker, brother of Charles Parker, was called. He said that in March, 1893, he lived in Hugter street, Brunswick square. One night he went with his brother to St James’s Restaurant, Piccadilly, where they were accosted by Taylor. The latter afterwards took them to a private room at Kittners, where dinner was provided for four. The prisoner came in, and they had dinner, with champagne, coffee, and liqueurs. He heard prisoner make certain statements to his brother. Cross-examined—He did not interfere when he heard them. He was sober.

Charles Robinson, book-keeper at the Savoy Hotel, spoke to the prisoner and Lord Alfred Douglas occupying bedrooms at the Hotel in March, 1893.

Jane Margaret Potter, chambermaid, who attended to the rooms, and another chambermaid who was not called at the previous trial, gave important evidence.

Luile Becker, waiter at the Savoy Hotel, gave evidence as to five young men visiting Wilde’s rooms. On one occasion he served supper when a young man was there. Margaret Bancroft deposed to the prisoner and Charles Parker coming one night to Parker’s room at 50 Park walk, Chelsea. Evidence was also given of Charles Parker visiting Wilde at his rooms in St James’s place. The prisoner’s evidence in the Queensberry trial was then read by counsel.

At five minutes past three the Solicitor-General intimated that the case for the prosecution was closed.

Sir Edward Clarke, for the defence, first submitted that on the counts connecting the prisoner with alleged occurrences at the Savoy Hotel in 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 that in regard to Shelly there was no corroboration.

His Lordship said Shelly must be treated as an accomplice, and at present he could see no corroboration.

The Solicitor-General submitted that Shelly was not an accomplice, and, if he were, there was corroboration.

His Lordship said he still held that Shelly should be treated as an accomplice, and there was no corroboration. This charge would, therefore, be withdrawn.

Sir E Clarke said in case the of Wood he should again submit that there was no corroboration of the charge.

The Solicitor General protested against charges being withdrawn other than by the jury under the direction of the judge. In the case of Woods he submitted that there was ample 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 trial was adjourned.