Compare Paragraphs
This page compares two reports at the paragraph level. The column on the left shows the first report in its entirety, and the column in the middle identifies paragraphs from the second report with significant matching content. The column on the right highlights any differences between the two matching paragraphs: pink shows differences in the first report and purple in the second report. The Match percentage underneath each comparison row in this column shows the percentage of similarity between the two paragraphs.
Original paragraph in
Bristol Mercury - Thursday, May 2, 1895
Bristol Mercury - Thursday, May 2, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
The Freeman’s Journal - Thursday, May 2, 1895
The Freeman’s Journal - Thursday, May 2, 1895
Difference
At the Old Bailey, London, yesterday, before Mr Justice Charles, the trial was resumed of Oscar Wilde, aged 40, and Alfred Taylor, aged
33, on an indictment charging them with certain misdemeanours.
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 the uncorroborative testimony of an
accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the cease 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 unfavorable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorien Gray." In the last century 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 the Acolyte," the work of
another. He called particular attention to Wilde'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 judgement. The learned Judge next approached consideration of the charges in the order
of their dates, 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 Pimilico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and
unscrupulous. The Savoy hotel incident was a most anxious part of inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the the
character of the Crown witnesses. After a reference to the part played by Wood in the matter of the Douglas and Wilde letters, his Lordship reviewed the
evidence against Taylor in respect of the alleged acts of indecency with Charles and William Parker. 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.
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 5.15 the jury returned into Court and informed his Lordship that they could not agree upon certain of the questions submitted to
them.
Replying to questions later, the foreman said there was no possibility of agreement.
Upon the count of conspiracy his Lordship had early in the day directed a verdict of not guilty, and a formal finding was now arrived at
on this and other minor counts, but the Judge observed that all material questions were unhappily undecided. He discharged the jury and refused to bail
Wilde and Taylor, informing Sir E. Clarke that the application must be made in chambers.
Mr Gill, who appeared for the Treasury in the prosecution, notified that the case would be retried 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.