Compare Documents
This page compares two reports at the document level. The column on the left shows the first report and the column in the middle shows the second. The column on the right highlights any differences between the two documents. Pink shows differences in the first report and purple in the second report. The Match percentage shows the percentage of similarity between the two documents.
The Freeman’s Journal - Thursday, May 2, 1895
London, Thursday Morning.
[...]The disagreement of the jury in the case against Oscar Wilde was received everywhere with astonishment except in the court. Those who had heard the judge's charge were not unprepared for such an unsatisfactory result of a highly unsavoury case. The procedure in such circumstances is that the prisoner is put back for re-trial at the next sessions. Of course it is optional with the Crown whether they will proceed again with a case or not. It is only in Ireland in the cases of prisoners charged with offences of a political nature that the full rigour of the law is strained to get convictions where a jury has failed to agree. In the present instance of course there are felt to be special reasons why the responsibility of the Crown should be exercised with particular care. There will, naturally, be a desire to avoid raking up anew these abominations, while there is also the necessity of visiting with condign punishment an offence which, if established, is of the most odious nature.[...]
Dublin Evening Telegraph - Thursday, May 2, 1895
[...] The disagreement of the jury in the case against Oscar Wilde was received everywhere with astonishment except in the court. Those who had heard the judge’s charge were not unprepared for such an unsatisfactory result of a highly unsavoury case. The procedure in such circumstances is that the prisoner is put back for re-trial at the next sessions. Of course it is optional with the Crown whether they will proceed again with a case or not. It is only in Ireland in the cases of prisoners charged with offences of a political nature that the full rigour of the law is strained to get convictions where a jury has failed to agree. In the present instance of course there are felt to be special reasons why the responsibility of the Crown should be exercised with particular care. There will, naturally, be a desire to avoid raking up anew these abominations, while there is also the necessity of visiting with condign punishment an offence which, if established, is of the most odious nature.