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
The Morning Post - Saturday, April 27, 1895
The Morning Post - Saturday, April 27, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
Bristol Mercury - Saturday, May 25, 1895
Bristol Mercury - Saturday, May 25, 1895
Difference
At the Central Criminal Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Charles, Oscar Wilde, aged 40, author, and Alfred Taylor, aged 33, of no
occupation, were severally indicted for certain misdemeanours under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885.
At the Central Criminal Court, London, yesterday, before Mr Justice Wills, Oscar Wilde, 40, author, and Alfred Taylor, 33, of no
occupation, were indicted a second time for certain misdemeanours.
Mr. C. F. Gill with Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Public Prosecutor; Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles
Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde; Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor; and Mr. Leonard Kershaw watched the case on behalf
of certain parties interested.
Before the prisoners were called upon to plead, Sir Edward Clarke moved to quash certain counts of the indictment on the ground that
they had been unlawfully joined. In regard to certain of these counts, the Legislature made the accused a competent but not a compellable witness. As to
the counts for conspiracy contained in the indictment, and joined unlawfully, as he submitted, to those for alleged offences in regard to which the
accused could give evidence, they did not admit of that provision, and consequently, if on the hearing of the first set of charges the accused gave
evidence, he would be cross-examined, and the result of that cross-examination might tend to prejudice the case in regard to the subsequent charge, that
of conspiracy, in respect of which the accused could not give evidence.
Mr. Gill contended that the counts were in law properly joined, and in support of his contention he referred to the case of "The Queen
v. Owen" to show that the joining of the counts for conspiracy with the counts preferred under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was not
inconsistent.
Mr. Justice Charles admitted that the law as it stood presented inconveniences, but he could not concur with the view expressed by the
learned counsel (Sir Edward Clarke) that the counts had been improperly joined, as, in his opinion, it was not in accordance with the general law
applicable to the indictment.
Sir Edward Clarke asked next that the prosecution should elect upon which of the set of charges they would proceed, whether the
conspiracy charge or the charge in regard to which the accused were competent witnesses.
Mr. Justice Charles said that it was impossible to put the prosecution to the election asked for.
Mr. Gill having related the facts of the case to the Jury, evidence was given by witnesses named Charles Parker, William Parker, Alfred
Wood, and others. The case for the prosecution had not concluded when the Court adjourned till to-day.