Compare Documents

London, Wednesday.

Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day on the several indictments preferred against them.

Mr Justice Charles began his summing up to the jury by remarking that the prosecuting counsel had acted wisely in withdrawing the charge of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guilty. It was a rule of law that uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the sense in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins, and Wood had been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices. The jury, in considering the details of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on Wilde v Queensberry, and passing to the literary part of the case said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unfavourable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of Dorien Grey. In the last century the noble-minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for the Priest and Acolyte the work of another. He called particular attention to Wile's answers given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgment. The learned judge next approached the consideration of the charges in the order of their date. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. Long quotations were read by his lordship from Shelley's letters, in one of which the writer said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane." To deal with Shelley's evidence would be an interesting and responsible part of the jury's duty. There was proof of excitability, and Shelley had told a nauseous tale, but to talk of him as an insane man, would be to exaggerate the effect of the letters. His lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimlico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy Hotel evidence was a most anxious part of the inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the character of the Crown witnesses. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at 1 35. At a quarter after five the jury returned into court and informed his lordship that they could not agree upon certain of the questions submitted to them. In reply to his lordship the foreman said there was no possibility of an agreement. Upon the counts of conspiracy the judge had early in the day directed a verdict of not guilty and a formal finding was later arrived at on this and other minor counts, but the Judge observed that all the material questions were unhappily undecided. He discharged the jury, and refused to admit Wilde and Taylor to bail, informing Sir Edward Clarke that any application for bail must be made to a judge in Chambers. Mr Gill, who appeared for the Treasury, noted that the case would be tried next session. The prisoners, who had been brought back to court for the purpose of hearing the result, were then removed in custody. Wilde engaged in conversation for a few minutes with one of his legal representatives.

Oscar Wilde (40), author, and Alfred Taylor (33), no occupation, appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day on several indictments charging them with committing grave offences.

The approaches to the Old Bailey presented much the same aspect as during the hearing of the action Wilde v. the Marquess of Queensberry, out of which the present prosecution 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 gentleman 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 Mayor.

Mr. Justice Charles took his seat at half-past ten o'clock. Wilde, 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 greatcoat of light brown cloth was in strong contrast with 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 witnesses. Upon the charge of conspiracy, which was another part of the indictment, they could not be competent witnesses. The learned counsel based his argument 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 authorities, as there were broad distinctions between this case and those upon which decisions had been given. He, however, thought that the case Queen v. Owen, to which attention had been called by Mr. Gill, pionted 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 case, he did not agree to the view of the learned counsel that the several counts could not be lawfully joined.

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 in the discretion of the learned judge.

His Lordship said he agreed, aud he felt it impossible in this case to put the prosecution to elect 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 consideration without bias. Mr. Gill briefly sketched the circumstances of the action of Wilde v. the Marquess of Queensberry, the subsequent arrest of Wilde, and the apprehension of Taylor during the preliminary examination of Wilde at Bow Street, prefacing his statements 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 Parkor, valet, and William Parker, groom, were introduced to Wilde by his fellow prisoner, and stated the nature 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 visits to Wilde, and the relations of the two prisoners as disclosed by correspondence in possession of the prosecution. The allegations in respect to other persons mentioned in the several counts of the indictment were next described at considerable length, and in this connection Wilde's visit to Paris was alluded to, also his conduct in making presents and in giving money Counsel next adverted to the alleged Savoy Hotel incidents, and finished his address at half-past twelve.

During the greater part of it Wilde had sat disconsolately, with a hand to the right side of his face. He moved restlessly from time to time. Taylor closely followed Mr. Gill as he passed from point to point of the story.

The youth, Charles Parker, valet, was the first witness sworn. He described his introduction to Oscar Wilde by Taylor as a result of an arrangement at St. James's Restaurant. He also detailed various acts. Counsel took the witness to another part of the case—that against Taylor. Wilde gave him a cigarette case and a gold ring, Witness testified to visits which he had made to Wilde, and spoke of certain acts as to which details were not adduced at Bow Street. He ceased to associate with the prisoner Taylor in 1894, and went away to the country where he embarked upon another occupation. He enlisted.

The Court adjourned for luncheon.

The revelations made by the previous witness caused considerable sensation, and were of a more shocking character than those given before the magistrate.

On the Court resuming after luncheon Sir E. Clarke began his cross-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. The men who extorted the money were Wood and Allen.

How much money did Wood and Allen get?—£300 or £400. (Sensation.)

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

At Sir Edward's request Parker wrote the name of the gentleman in whose employ he had been as a 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. Wilde's rooms in St. James's Place were very "public," and servants came in and out.

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

Cross-examined by Mr Grain: 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.

Further cross-examined: He went to Paris with an operatic composer in 1893. It was as valet that he went. He was given two louis a week.

Did you occupy the same apartments?—No. I stayed in a different place. I knew a man named Burton, and went with him to Monte Carlo.

Re-examined by Mr. Gill: He knew Lord A. Douglas. The letters which Wood had possession of were supposed to be letters received by Lord A. Douglas from Wilde.

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

William Parker, a groom, and Mrs. Grant, a married woman, also gave evidence.

The case was adjourned.

LORD ALFRED DOUGLAS.

The Central News is requested by Lord Alfred Douglas to state that, in response to an urgent telegram from his mother, he started to-day for Italy to see her, but hopes to return to London in a few days.