Compare Documents

Oscar Wilde, 40, author; and Alfred Taylor, 33; no occupation, appeared in the Central Criminal Court, London, to-day.

The approaches to the Old Bailey presented much the same aspect as during the hearing of the action of Wilde v the Marquis of Queensberry, out of which the present action has arisen, but by some alteration of the arrangements for admission made by the Under Sheriff the crowding within the building was less. There was no legion of junior members of the Bar blocking up the passages, although the learned gentlemen elbowed each other in the seats usually reserved for counsel. The public galleries were filled long before the jury filed into their box.

Mr C F Gill, Mr Horace Avory, and Mr A Gill conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Treasury. Sir Edward Clarke, Q C, M P; Mr Mathews, and Mr Travers Humphreys defended Wilde. Taylor was represented by Mr J P Grain and Mr Paul Taylor. Mr Kershaw held a watching brief for the witness, Sidney Mavor.

Mr Justice Charles took his seat at half-past ten o’clock.

Mr, on taking his place in the dock, appeared pale and ill. He was attired as he appeared at Bow street, and wore a dark blue overcoat, with velvet collar and cuffs. He leaned languidly on the bar. Taylor, whose great coat of light brown cloth was in strong contrast to the darker attire of his companion, surveyed the court with a somewhat impassive air, his gloved hands joined in front of him. The accused being called upon to answer, Sir E Clarke rose and made a preliminary objection, the gist of which was that neither of them could be asked to plead, because, one part of the indictment being under the Criminal Law Amendment Act they could upon that be competent witness. Upon the charge of conspiracy, which was another part of the indictment they could not be competent witnesses. The learned counsel based his arguments upon certain cases in the law reports, and he submitted a demurrer on the ground that the counts had not been lawfully joined.

Mr Gill having replied.

His Lordship said there was very little assistance from the authorities, as there were broad distinctions between this case and those upon which decisions had been given. He, however, thought the case of the Queen v Owen, to which attention had been called by Mr Gill, pointed against his acceding to the request of Sir Edward Clarke. Though he felt the inconvenience of the present state of things, as already expressed by the late Lord Chief Justice in the Queen v Whelan, he did not agree to the view of the learned counsel that the several counts could not be lawfully joined.

The prisoners were accordingly asked to plead and to the several indictments they replied "Not guilty."

Sir E Clarke then raised the point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy or upon the count of misdemeanour.

Mr Gill submitted that it was entirely for the discretion of the learned judge. His lordship said he agreed, and he felt it impossible in this case to put the prosecution to the election as to which of the counts they would offer evidence upon. Mr Gill then opened to the jury, intimating at the outset that he was there to conduct the prosecution by the direction of the Public Prosecutor. Though much had been published about the case, he appealed to them to approach its conduction without bias. He briefly sketched the circumstances of the action of Wilde v the Marquis of Queensberry, the subsequent arrest of Wilde, and the apprehension of Taylor during the preliminary examination of Wilde at Bow street, prefacing his statement with the observation that it was an extraordinary fact that a man like Wilde should have been in contact at all with Taylor. The learned counsel detailed the circumstances under which Charles Parker, valet, and William Parker, groom, were introduced to Wilde by his fellow prisoner, and stated the stature of the evidence as to their subsequent relations at various addresses in London. Passing from the incident of the mock wedding between Taylor and Charles Parker, Mr Gill traced their later movements, Parker’s visit to Wilde, and the relations of the two prisoners as disclosed by correspondence in possession of the prosecution. The allegations to other persons mentioned in the several counts in the indictment were next described as at considerable length, and in this connection Wilde’s visit to Paris were alluded to, also his conduct in making presents and in giving money. Counsel next adverted to the alleged Savoy Hotel incidents. The youth, Charles Parker, valet, was the first witness sworn. He described his introduction to Oscar Wilde by Taylor, and repeated the evidence given by him at Bow street.

After luncheon Sir Edward Clarke began his examination of Parker, who said it was after he joined his regiment that Mr Russell, the solicitor, found him. He had not in the meantime communicated with any person. He had spoken in his examination at Bow street of having received £30 as part of a sum of money extorted from a gentleman upon an allegation of misconduct with witness. The men who extorted the money were Wood and Allen. The misconduct took place at Camera square.

How much money did Wood and Allen get? Three or four hundred pounds (sensation).

When you had spent your portion you went into the army? Yes, I spent it in three or four days.

At Sir Edward Clarke’s request Parker wrote the name of the gentleman in whose employ he had been as valet before meeting Taylor. The name was handed to his Lordship, the learned counsel remarking that as the gentleman had no connection whatever with this case there could be no object in mentioning the name in open court.

Replying to further questions, Parker said that after leaving this particular gentleman’s employ he received a letter from him charging him with stealing clothing. He sent the articles back to his late employer. He told Wilde about his own parentage, and expressed a wish to go on the stage. He knew of the man Wood having got possession of some letters of Wilde, which he had found in some clothes given to him. Wilde’s rooms in St James’s place were very "public," and servants came in and out.

Do you mean to assert that in the rooms thus described this sort of conduct went on again and again? Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr Grain—He was not introduced to Taylor by another person named Harrington, although Harrington (who was a clerk) was in the bar at the St James’s Restaurant when witness made Taylor’s acquaintance. Wood visited witness at Camera square frequently.

Was £30 the only sum you ever received under similar circumstances? Yes.

What means of subsistence had you when you met Taylor in St James’s Restaurant? I had just left a situation.

How much money had you in your possession? A few shillings.

He went to Paris with an operatic composer in 1893. It was as valet that he went. He was given two louis a week. He knew a man named Burton and went with him to Monte Carlo.

Re-examined by Mr Gill—He knew neither Wood, Allen, or Burton until he became acquainted with Taylor. He knew Lord A Douglas. The letters which Woods had possession of were supposed to be letters received by Lord A Douglas from Wilde.

Mr Gill called attention to another part of Parker’s deposition at Bow street, and examined the witness upon it with the view to prove that there was no discrepancy in his testimony as a whole.

Proceeding.

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.