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.

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.