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 Irish News and Belfast Morning News - Friday, May 24, 1895
The Irish News and Belfast Morning News - Friday, May 24, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
Bristol Mercury - Saturday, May 25, 1895
Bristol Mercury - Saturday, May 25, 1895
Difference
LONDON, THURSDAY.The trial of Oscar Wilde was resumed at the Old Bailey to-day. The prisoner entered the Court shortly before
10.30, and stood conversing for some time with Lord Douglas of Hawick and the Rev. Stewart Headlam. He afterwards entered the dock, and sat with his elbow
on the ledge before him while listening to the evidence.
William Parker, brother of Charles Parker, Charles Robinson, book-keeper at the Savoy Hotel, Jane Margaret Potter, chambermaid, and
Luile Becker, waiter at the Savoy Hotel, gave evidence, and the prisoner’s evidence in the Queensberry 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 connecting the prisoner with alleged occurrences at the Savoy
Hotel in 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 that in regard to Shelly there was no corroboration.
Sir Edward Clarke submitted in regard to Shelley that there was no corroboration.
His LORDSHIP said Shelly must be treated as an accomplice, and at present he could see 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.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL submitted that Shelly was not an accomplice, and, if he was, there was corroboration.
His LORDSHIP said he still held that Shelly should be treated as an accomplice, and there was 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 charges.
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 charges being withdrawn other than by the jury under the direction of the judge. In the case
of Wood he submitted that there was ample corroboration.
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.
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 trial was adjourned until to-morrow.