Compare Documents

London, Friday.

Oscar Wilde, 40, and Alfred Taylor, 33, appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court, to-day, to meet the charges made against them.

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

Mr Gill was leading counsel for the Treasury and Sir Edward Clarke conducted the defence, several junior counsel holding briefs on both sides. Wilde appeared in the dock looking ill, and evidently suffering from acute mental depression, but his companion viewed the scene with a rather impassive air.

Sir Edward Clarke took a preliminary objection that the prisoners could not be called upon to plead, because under that portion of the indictment which alleged conspiracy the accused were competent witnesses; on the other counts they were not competent witnesses. He, therefore, entered a demurrer.

Mr Justice Charles overruled the objection, and both prisoners then pleaded not guilty.

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

Mr Justice Charles declined to put the prosecution to election as to the counts upon which they would offer evidence.

Mr Gill thereupon opened the case to the jury. Mr Gill dealt with in all twenty-five separate counts, and concluded by saying that he had little doubt the Treasury would bring them all home to the accused.

During the greater part of the learned counsel's address Wilde sat dejectedly with his hand to his face, but Taylor seemed to be less impressed.

Witnesses having been examined, the case was adjourned until to-morrow (Saturday).

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.