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 St. James's Gazette - Friday, April 26, 1895
The St. James's Gazette - Friday, April 26, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
The St. James's Gazette - Tuesday, April 30, 1895
The St. James's Gazette - Tuesday, April 30, 1895
Difference
At the Central Criminal Court this morning Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor were placed in the dock before Mr Justice Charles to answer a
series of indictments charging them with committing offences under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Wilde is described as an author, and
Taylor as of no occupation.
Mr. C. F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A. Gill appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Treasury. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C, M.P., Mr.
C. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde, and Mr. J. P. Grain amid Mr. T. Taylor the prisoner Taylor. Mr. Kershaw holds a watching brief in
the interests of the witness Sidney Mavor.
Mr. C. F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A Gill appeared for the prosecution; Sir E. Clarke, Mr. C. Mathews, and Mr. Travers
Humphreys for the prisoner Wilde; Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor for Taylor; and Mr. Leonard Kershaw watched the case on behalf of the witness Sidney
Mavor.
Sir Edward Clarke took exception to the prisoners being called upon to plead. There were, he said, twenty-five counts in the
indictment. Some of these were taken under the Criminal Amendment Act, and others were charges of conspiracy. He submitted that the defendants were
entitled to be put upon their trial on charges of conspiracy, under which they could not give evidence, or else under the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
under which they could give evidence. The question had only arisen once before. If the prisoners were called upon to answer certain of the acts, those
being conspiracy, they could not be called as witnesses. Nor would it be disputed that under the eleventh section of the Act of 1885 they were rendered
competent witnesses. Under the charges of conspiracy where two persons were indicted one was not competent to give evidence for the other. The Act of 1885
made them competent but not compellable witnesses.
Mr. Gill submitted that the decision in the Queen v. Owen applied in this case. There was nothing which prevented tile prisoners from
being available witnesses and liable to cross-examination.
Sir E. Clarke contended that they could not join a felony and a misdemeanor, as there was a different mode of trial in each case.
The Judge said unquestionably before the passing of the Act of 1885, these counts might have been lawfully joined together. Sir Edward
Clarke's objection was overruled.
Both prisoners then pleaded not guilty.