The South Australian Register - Friday, April 5, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
ADELAIDE AND LONDON
TELEGRAPH
[BY SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH.]
THE SENSATIONAL TRIAL
FOR LIBEL
MARQUIS OF QUEENSBERRY
PLEADS JUSTIFICATION.
OSCAR WILDE'S CROSS-EXAMINA-
TION.
"CRIMINAL PRACTICES."
London, April
3.
The trial of the Marquis of Queensberry for libelling Mr. Oscar Wilde, the well-known litterateur and dramatist, was continued to-day.
The trial of the Marquis of Queensberry for libelling Mr. Oscar Wilde, the well-known litterateur and dramatist, was continued to-day.
The trial of the Marquis of Queensberry for libelling Mr. Oscar Wilde, the well-known literateur and dramatist, was continued to-day.
The trial of the Marquis of Queensberry on the charge of having criminally libelled Mr. Oscar Wilde, the well-known author and dramatist, was continued to-day.
The trial of the Marquis of Queensberry on the charge of having criminally libelled Mr. Oscar Wilde, the well-known author and dramatist, was commenced to-day.
Mr. Oscar Wilde, the plaintiff in the case, was submitted to a stringent cross-examination by counsel for the defence, with a view of showing that the book entitled "The Picture of Dorian Gray" - which was originally published in Lippincott's Magazine, and afterwards republished in book form - and other articles, which counsel for the defence connected with the plaintiff, inspired criminal practices.
Mr. Oscar Wilde, the plaintiff in the case, was submitted to a stringent cross-examination by counsel for the defence, with a view of showing that the book entitled "The Picture of Dorian Gray" - which was originally published in Lippincott's Magazine, and afterwards republished in book form — and other articles, which counsel for the defence connected with the plaintiff, inspired criminal practices.
Mr. Oscar Wilde, the plaintiff in the case, was submitted to a stringent cross-examination by counsel for the defence, with a view of showing that the book entitled "The Picture of Dorian Gray" - which was originally published in Leppincott's Magazine, and afterwards re-published in book form - and other articles in the same magazine which bore the nom-de-plume of "Chameleon," and which counsel for the defence connected together, inspired criminal practices.
The plaintiff, however, insisted that the true interpretation of the book and articles referred to were merely an expression of artistic faculty.
The plaintiff, however, insisted that the true interpretation of the book and articles referred to were merely an expression of artistic faculty.
The plaintiff, however, insisted that the true interpretation of the book and articles referred to were merely an expression of artistic faculty.
The letters to Lord Alfred Douglas which were produced, and the prose and poems, of which it was alleged that he was the author, might perhaps be characterised as extraordinary, but they did not justify an immoral interpretation.
The letters to Lord Alfred Douglas which were produced, and the prose and poems, of which it was alleged that he was the author, might perhaps be characterised as extraordinary, but they did not justify an immoral interpretation.
The letters to Lord Alfred Douglas which were produced, and the prose poems, of which it was alleged that he was the author, might perhaps be characterised as extraordinary, but they did not justify an immoral interpretation.
He admitted that he gave one of the alleged blackmailers a sum of money amounting to £21, and afterwards had lunch with him in his private room.
He admitted that he gave one of the alleged blackmailers a sum of money amounting to £21, and afterwards had lunch with him in his private room.
He admitted that he gave one alleged blackmailer a sum of money amounting to £21, and afterwards had lunch with him in his private room.
It was also elicited in cross-examination that the plaintiff admitted to terms of intimacy two lads who were not his social equals, and that he had given them expensive presents and considerable amounts of money at various times. The plaintiff's plea was that he did so simply on the ground that he liked them.
It was also elicited in cross-examination that the plaintiff admitted to terms of intimacy two lads who were not his social equals, and that he had given them expensive presents and considerable amounts of money at various times. The plaintiff's plea was that he did so simply on the ground that he liked them.
It was also elicited in cross-examination that the plaintiff had admitted to terms of intimacy with two lads who were not his social equals, and that he had given them expensive presents, and considerable amounts of money at various times. The plaintiff's plea was that he did so simply on the grounds that he liked them.
During the examination of Mr. Oscar Wilde his extravagant gestures and postures, and his epigramatic and paradoxical style of replying to counsel caused a vast amount of amusement in the Court.
During the examination of Mr. Oscar Wilde his extravagant gestures and postures, and his epigramatic and paradoxical style of replying to counsel caused a vast amount of amusement in the Court.
During the examination of Mr. Oscar Wilde, his extravagant gestures and postures, and his epigramic and paradoxical style of replying to counsel caused a vast amount of amusement in the Court.
At the end of the day the Court adjourned, the Judge granting bail to the defendant for his subsequent appearance.
At the end of the day the Court adjourned, the Judge granting bail to the defendant for his subsequent appearance.
At the end of the day the Court adjourned, the Judge granting bail to the defendant for his subsequent appearance.
London, April 4.
The plaintiff's cross-examination was continued this morning. He said he was acquainted with three men named respectively Parker, Atkins, and Taylor. Taylor had introduced five young men to him on separate occasions to whom the witness had given money. He was unaware if any of them were gentlemen's servants. It was one of his pleasures to indulge in the company of bright happy people.
The plaintiff's cross-examination was continued this morning. He said he was acquainted with three men named respectively Parker, Atkins, and Taylor. Taylor had introduced five young men to him on separate occasions to whom the witness had given money. He was unaware if any of them were gentlemen's servants. It was one of his pleasures to indulge in the company of bright happy people.
The plaintiff also said that he had frequently visited Taylor's rooms, and he was aware that Taylor and Parker had on one occasion been arrested, but he still continued his friendship with them.
The plaintiff also said that he had frequently visited Taylor's rooms, and he was aware that Taylor and Parker had on one occasion been arrested, but he still continued his friendship with them.
Wilde admitted that on one occasion Atkins had accompanied him to Paris. Taylor had introduced to him a youth named Ernest Scarp, who subsequently became acquainted with Lord Alfred Douglas whilst travelling to Australia. Wilde acknowledged that he had made presents to Scarp and also to a youth named Mabor, and when pressed to give his reasons said he supposed it was "because he liked them."
Wilde admitted that on one occasion Atkins had accompanied him to Paris. Taylor had introduced to him a youth named Ernest Scarp, who subsequently became acquainted with Lord Alfred Douglas whilst travelling to Australia. Wilde acknowledged that he had made presents to Scarp and also to a youth named Mabor, and when pressed to give his reasons said he supposed it was "because he liked them."
Counsel for the defendent read certain letters from youths, whose names had already transpired in connection with the case, which showed the writers to be in a poverty-stricken condition; some of the letters implored assistance, and begged for employment.
Counsel for the defendant read certain letters from youths, whose names had already transpired in connection with the case, which showed the writers to be in a poverty-stricken condition; some of the letters implored assistance, and begged for employment.
Other correspondence read in Court showed that the Marquis of Queensberry had endeavoured to stop his son from visiting Oscar Wilde. In reply Lord A. Douglas telegraphed to his father that "he was a funny little man." The Marquis then called at Wilde's house, when a furious scene occurred. Wilde denied the charges laid by the Marquis, and showed him to the door.
Other correspondence read in Court showed that the Marquis of Queensberry had endeavoured to stop his son from visiting Oscar Wilde. In reply Lord A. Douglas telegraphed to his father that "he was a funny little man." The Marquis then called at Wilde's house, when a furious scene occurred. Wilde denied the charges laid by the Marquis, and showed him to the door.
Other letters were read in the court which showed that the Marquis of Queensberry had endeavoured to stop his son visiting Mr. Wilde, but his son (Lord Alfred Douglas) wired to the Marquis stating that "he (Wilde) was a funny little man." The Marquis then called at Mr. Wilde's house, and a furious scene ensued. Mr. Wilde denied the charge made against him, and showed the Marquis the door.
Other letters were read in the court which showed that the Marquis of Queensberry had endeavoured to stop his son visiting Mr. Wilde, but his son (Lord Alfred Douglas) wired to the Marquis stating that "he (Wilde) was a funny little man." The Marquis then called at Mr. Wilde's house, and a furious scene ensued. Mr. Wilde denied the charge made against him, and showed the Marquis the door.
Letters read in Court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavouring to stop his son visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was a funny little man. The Marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house, when a furious scene took place. The latter denied the charges levelled against him, and showed the Marquis the door.
Letters read in Court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavouring to stop his son visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was a funny little man. The Marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house, when a furious scene took place. The latter denied the charges levelled against him, and showed the Marquis the door.
Letters read in Court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavouring to stop his son visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was a funny little man. The Marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house, when a furious scene took place. The latter denied the charges levelled against him, and showed the Marquis the door.
Letters read in Court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavouring to stop his son visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was a funny little man. The Marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house when a furious scene took place. The latter denied the charges levelled against him, and showed the Marquis the door.
Letters read in court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavouring to stop his son visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was a funny little man. The Marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house, when a furious scene took place. The latter denied the charges levelled against him, and showed the Marquis the door.
Letters read in Court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavouring to stop his son visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was a funny little man. The Marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house, where a furious scene took place. The latter denied the charges levelled against him, and showed the Marquis the door.
The letters read in court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavouring to stop his son from visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was "a funny little man." The marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house, where a furious scene took place. The latter denied at the time the charges levelled against him, and showed the marquis the door.
The letters read in court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavouring to stop his son from visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was "a funny little man." The marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house, where a furious scene took place. The latter denied at the time the charges levelled against him, and showed the marquis the door.
Letters read in Court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavoring to stop his son visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was a funny little man. The Marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house, where a furious scene took place. The latter denied the charge levelled against him, and showed the Marquis the door.
The letters read in court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavoring to stop his son from visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was "a funny little man." The Marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house, where a furious scene took place. The latter denied at the time the charges levelled against him, and showed the Marquis the door.
The Marquis then wrote to his wife complaining that she was encouraging their son's intimacy with Wilde. Not withstanding all this, however, the friendship of Lady Queensberry and her son with the plaintiff remained unbroken.
The Marquis then wrote to his wife complaining that she was encouraging their son's intimacy with Wilde. Not withstanding all this, however, the friendship of Lady Queensberry and her son with the plaintiff remained unbroken.