Bristol Mercury - Friday, May 24, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
OSCAR WILDE.
TRIAL AT THE OLD BAILEY.
The trial of Mr Oscar Wilde was resumed at the Old Bailey, London, yesterday.
The trial of Oscar Wilde was continued to-day at the Old Bailey before Mr Justice Wills.
The trial of Oscar Wilde was continued to-day at the Old Bailey before Mr Justice Wills.
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.
Sir Edward Clarke, for the defence, first submitted that on the counts charging prisoner with indecencies with persons unknown at the Savoy Hotel on the 9th and 20th of 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Sir Edward Clarke submitted in regard to Shelley that there was no corroboration.
Sir Edward Clarke submitted in regard to Shelby there was no corroboration.
Sir Edward Clarke submitted that in regard to Shelly there was no corroboration.
Sir EDWARD CLARKE submitted that in regard to Shelly there was no corroboration.
Sir Edward Clarke argued that with regard to Shelley 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.
His Lordship said he still held Shelly should be treated as an accomplice, and there was no corroboration. This charge would, therefore, be withdrawn.
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 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.
His Lordship said Shelly must be treated as an accomplice, and at present he could see no corroboration.
His LORDSHIP said Shelly must be treated as an accomplice, and at present he could see no corroboration.
His Lordship said Shelby must be treated as an accomplice, and at present he could see no corroboration.
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.
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 charges.
Sir E Clarke said in case the 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.
The Solicitor-General protested against the charges being withdrawn other than by the jury under direction of the judge. In the case of Wood he submitted that there was ample corroboration.
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 charges being withdrawn other than by the jury under the direction of the judge. In the case of Woods he submitted that there was ample 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.
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.
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.