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 - Friday, May 24, 1895
Bristol Mercury - Friday, May 24, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
Bristol Mercury - Saturday, May 25, 1895
Bristol Mercury - Saturday, May 25, 1895
Difference
The trial of Mr Oscar Wilde was resumed at the Old Bailey, London, yesterday.
William Parker, brother of Charles Parker, was first called, and was followed by witnesses from the Savoy hotel, some of the evidence not
having been given before. The prisoner's evidence in the Queensberry's trial was then read by counsel. At five minutes past three the Solicitor-General
intimated that the case for the prosecution had closed.
On Thursday Wm, Parker, brother of Char. Parker, was first called, and was followed by witnesses from the Savoy hotel, some of the
evidence not having been given before. The prisoner's evidence in the Queensberry's trial was then read by counsel. At five minutes past three the
Solicitor-General intimated that the case for the prosecution had closed.
Sir Edward Clarke, for the defence, first submitted that on the counts charging the prisoner with indecencies with persons unknown at the
Savoy hotel on the 9th and 20th March, 1893, there was no evidence to go to the jury, on the ground that the evidence of the chambermaids was
uncorroborated.
Sir Edward Clarke, for the defence, first submitted that on the counts charging the prisoner with indecenies with persons unknown at the
Savoy hotel on the 9th and 20th March, 1893, there was no evidence to go to the jury, on the ground that the evidence of the chambermaids was
uncorroborated.
Mr Justice Wills thought his duty led him to submit these counts to the jury.
Mr Justice Wills thought his duty led him to submit these counts to the jury.
Sir Edward Clarke submitted in regard to Shelley that there was no corroboration.
Sir Edward Clarke submitted in regard to Shelley that there was no corroboration.
His Lordship said Shelley must be treated as an accomplice, and at present he could see no corroboration. This charge would therefore be
withdrawn.
His Lordship said Shelley must be treated as an accomplice, and at present he could see no corroboration. This charge would therefore be
withdrawn.
Sir E. Clarke said in the case of Wood he should again submit that there was no corroboration of the charge.
Sir E. Clarke said in the case of Wood he should again submit that there was no corroboration of the charge.
The Solicitor-General protested against the charges being withdrawn other than by the jury under the direction of the Judge.
The Solicitor-General protested against the charges being withdrawn other than by the jury under the direction of the Judge. In the case
of Wood he submitted that there was sample corroboration.
In the case of Wood he submitted that there was simple corroboration.
His Lordship said he should leave this case to the jury, but he should point out to them in what direction it went.
His Lordship said he should leave this case to the jury, but he should point out to them in what direction it went.
The case was adjourned until to-day.