Bristol Mercury - Saturday, May 4, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
OSCAR WILDE.
At the Old Bailey, London, on Saturday, the trial of Oscar Wilde, aged 40, author and dramatist, and Alfred Taylor, aged 33, on an indictment charging them with certain misdemeanours, was resumed before Mr Jusice Charles.
At the Old Bailey, London, on Saturday, the trial of Oscar Wilde, aged 40, author and dramatist, and Alfred Taylor, aged 33, on an indictment charging them with certain misdemeanours, was resumed before Mr Justice Charles.
The witness Alfred Wood, in cross-examination by Sir Edward Clarke, admitted that he received £175 out of over £300 which was alleged to have been extorted from a gentleman. It was not true that he had got money from other gentlemen in the same way.
The witness Alfred Wood, in cross-examination by Sir Edward Clarke, admitted that he received £175 out of over £300 which was alleged to have been extorted from a gentleman. It was not true that he had got money from other gentlemen in the same way.
Frederick Atkins spoke of his aquaintance with the two prisoners. He was introduced to Wilde at a dinner; afterwards he went to Paris with Wilde. By Sir Edward Clarke—He did not remember whether he and a man named Burton had been getting their livelihood by blackmailing. He never got any money by such means. Questioned as to a Birmingham gentleman, who, it was alleged, was enticed into witness's room, and there made by witness and a man named Burton to part with a large sum of money, Atkins denied that anything of the kind occurred. By Mr Grain—Was not money paid by a foreign nobleman at Scarborough to Burton and yourself to the amount of £300?—No.
Frederick Atkins spoke of hls acquaintance with the two prisoners. He was introduced to Wilde at a dinner; afterwards he went to Paris with Wilde. By Sir Edward Clarke-He did not remember whether he and a man named Burton had been getting their livelihood by blackmailing. He never got any money by such means. Questioned as to a Birmingham gentleman, who, it was alleged, was enticed into witness's room, and there made by witness and a man named Burton to part with a large sum of money, Atkins denied that anything of the kind occurred. By Mr Grain-Was not money paid by a foreign nobleman at Scarborough to Burton and yourself to the amount of £300 ?-No.
At a subsequent stage Atkins ws recalled, and under cross-examination by Sir Edward Clarke, and after a stern admonition by the Judge, withdrew a number of these denials, pleading that he had forgotten the facts when he made them.
At a subsequent stage Atkins was recalled, and, under cross-examination by Sir Edward Clarke, and after a stern admonition by the Judge, withdrew a number of these denials, pleading that he had forgotten the facts when he made them.
Sidney Mavor and Edward Shelley having given evidence, the hearing was adjourned.
Sidney Mavor and Edward Shelley having given evidence, the hearing was adjourned until to-day.
The evidence for the prosecution was continued on Monday by the examination of shorthand writers who took notes in the case of Wilde v. Marquis of Queesberry.
The evidence for the prosecution was continued by the examination of shorthand writers who took notes in the case of Wilde v. Marquis of Queensberry.
The masseur and members of the staff of the Savoy hotel were then called.
The masseur and members of the staff of the Savoy hotel were then called.
Evidence of the arrest of both prisoners was next adduced by the police.
Evidence of the arrest of both prisoners was next adduced by the police.
Evidence of arrest of both prisoners was next adduced by the police.
Evidence of arrest of both prisoners was next adduced by the police.
The Clerk of the Court produced the indictment in the Wilde v. Queensberry action for libel, in which case the prosecution withdrew.
The Clerk of the Court produced the indictment in the Wilde v. Queensberry action for libel, in which case the prosecution withdrew.
The Clerk of the Court produced the indictment, Wilde v Queensberry, for libel, in which case the prosecution withdrew.
The Clerk of the Court produced the indictment, Wilde v Queensbery, for libel, in which case the prosecution withdrew.
Counsel now argued as to the reading of Wilde's deposition made as plaintiff. Finally it was agreed that Mr Gill should read from the beginning of the cross-examination.
Counsel now argued as to the reading of Wilde's deposition made as plaintiff. Finally it was agreed that Mr Gill should [...] from the beginning of the cross-examination.
Mr A Gill took up the reading of Wilde's deposition where Mr C. F. Gill had broken off. The answers given related to the prisoner's letters to Lord Alfred Douglas and to his denials given to suggestions respectineg witnesses for the Treasury. At a later stage, replying to a formal objection raised by Taylor's counsel, the Judge said the deposition would be considered at present as evidence against Wilde only.
Mr A Gill took up the reading of Wilde's deposition where Mr C.F. Gill had broken off. The answers given related to the prisoner's letters to Lord Alfred Douglas and to his denials given to suggestions respecting witnesses for the Treasury. At a later stage, replying to a formal objection raised by Taylor's counsel, the Judge said the deposition would be considered at present as evidence against Wilde only.
The case for the Crown having closed, his Lordship adjourned.
On Tuesday Mr Gill, on behalf of the Crown, formally withdrew the counts of the indictment alleging conspiracy, and said he did this to avoid any difficulty in calling prisoners into the witness box.
Mr Gill, on behalf of the Crown, formally withdrew the counts of the indictment alleging conspiracy, and said he did this to avoid any difficulty in calling prisoners into the witness box.
On the trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor being resumed to-day at the Central Criminal Court, Mr Gill, on behalf of the Crown, formally withdrew the counts of the indictment alleging conspiracy, and said he did this to avoid any difficulty in calling the prisoners into the witness box.
On the trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor being resumed yesterday at the Central Criminal Court, Mr Gill, on behalf of the Crown, formally withdrew the counts of the indictment alleging conspiracy, and said he did this to avoid any difficulty in calling the prisoners into the witness-box.
On the trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor being resumed today at the Central Criminal Court, London, Mr Gill, on behalf of the Crown, formerly withdrew the counts of the indictment alleging conspiracy, and said he did this to avoid any difficulty in calling the prisoners into the witness box.
On the trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor being resumed to-day at the Central Criminal Court, London, Mr Gill, on behalf of the Crown, formerly withdrew the counts of the indictment alleging conspiracy, and said he did this to avoid any difficulty in calling the prisoners into the witness box.
London, Tuesday.On the trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor being resumed to-day at the Central Criminal Court, Mr Gill, on behalf of the crown, formally withdrew the counts of the indictment alleging conspiracy, and said he … this to avoid any difficulty in calling the prisoners into the witness box.
Sir Edward Clarke asked that a verdict of not guilty on the conspiracy counts be at once returned, but his Lordship did not assent to this.
Sir Edward Clarke asked that a verdict of not guilty on the conspiracy counts be at once returned, but His Lordship did not assent to this.
Sir Edward Clarke asked that a verdict of not guilty on the conspiracy counts be at once returned, but his lordship did not assent to this.
Sir Eward Clarke asked that a verdict of not guilty on the conspiracy counts be at once returned, but his Lordship did not assent to this.
Sir Edward Clarke asked that a verdict of not guilty on the conspiracy counts be at once returned, but his lordship did not assent to it.
Sir Edward Clarke asked that a verdict of not guilty on conspiracy counts be at once returned, but his lordship did not assent to this.
Sir Edward Clarke asked that a verdict of not guilty on conspiracy counts be at once returned, but his lordship did not assent to this.
Sir Edward Clarke began his address for the defence of Wilde. He accused the public press of having imperilled the interests of justice.
Sir Edward Clarke began his address for the defence of Wilde. He accused the public press of having imperilled the interests of justice.
Oscar Wilde was called and sworn. He described his academical and literary career. Sir Edward Clarke—In cross-examination in Wilde vs. Queensberry you denied all the charges against you? Was that evidence absolultely and entirely true? Witness —Entirely true evidence. Is there any truth in any one of the allegations of indecency brought against you in this case?—There is no truth whatever in any one of those allegations.
Oscar Wilde was called and sworn. He described his academical and literary career. Sir Edward Clarke—In cross-examination in Wilde v. Queensberry you denied all the charges against you? Was that evidence absolutely and entirely true? Witness—Entirely true evidence. Is there any truth in any of the allegations of indecency brought against you in this case?—There is no truth whatever in any one of those allegations.
Sir E. Clarke—In cross-examination in Wilde v. Queensberry you denied all the charges against you. Was that evidence absolutely and entirely true?Witness—Entirely true evidence.Is there any truth in any one of the allegations brought against you in this case? There is no truth whatever in any one of those allegations.
Mr Gill, in cross-examination, quoted from a sonnet of Lord Alfred Douglas. Wilde replied that the love there spoken of was the love of David for Jonathon--the passion described by Plato as the beginning of wisdom, a deep spiritual affection as pure as it was perfect. In this century it was misunderstood, and a man was put in the pillory for it.
Mr Gill, in cross-examination, quoted from a sonnet of Lord Alfred Douglas, Wilde replied that the love there spoken of was the love of David for Jonathan—the passion described by Plato as the beginning of wisdom, a deep spiritual affection as pure as it was perfect. In this century it was misunderstood, and a man was put in the pillory for it.
Mr Gill, in cross-examination, quoted from a sonnet of Lord Alfred Douglas. Wilde replied that the love there spoken of was the love of David for Jonathan, the passion described by Plato as the beginning of wisdom, a deep spiritual affection as pure as it was perfect. In this century it was misunderstood, and a man was put in the pillory for it (applause in the gallery).
Mr Gill, in cross-examination, quoted from a sonnet of Lord Alfred Douglas. Wilde replied that the love there spoken of was the love of David for Jonathan, and the passion described by Plato as the beginning of wisdom, a deep spiritual affection as pure as it was perfect. In this century it was misunderstood, and a man was put in the pillory for it (applause in gallery).
Wilde replied that the love there spoken of was the love of David for Jonathan—the passion described by Plato as the beginning of wisdom—a deep, spiritual affection, as pure as it was perfect. In this century it was misunderstood, and a man was put in pillory for it (applause in gallery).
Wilde replied that the love there spoken of was the love of David for Jonathan—the passion described by Plato as the beginning of wisdom—a deep, spiritual affection, as pure as it was perfect. In this century it was misunderstood, and a man was put in the pillory for it (applause in the gallery).
Counsel then called the attention of witness to the statements of Parker, Shelley and Atkins, to which he gave a general denial.
Counsel then called the attention of witness to the statements of Parker, Shelley, and Atkins, to which he gave a general denial.
At the close of his examination Wilde again took his place in the dock, and Alfred Taylor, his prisoner, entered the witness box. He said he was educated at Marlborough, and was formerly in the Militia. In 1883 he came into £45 000, and had since lived a life of pleasure. The allegation brought against him by Charles Parker was absolutely untrue.
At the close of his examination Wilde again took his place in the dock, and Alfred Taylor, his co-prisoner, entered the witness box. He said he was educated at Marlborough, and was formerly in the Militia. In 1883 he came into £45,000, and had since lived a life of pleasure. The allegation brought against him by Charles Parker was absolutely untrue.
At the close of his examination Wilde again took his place in the dock, and Alfred Taylor, his co-prisoner, entered the witness box. He said he was educated at Marlborough, and was formerly in the Militia. In 1883 he came into £45,000 and had since lived a life of pleasure. The allegation brought against him by Charles Parker was absolutely untrue.
At the close of his examination Wilde again took his place in the dock, and Alfred Taylor, his companion, entered the witness box. He said he was educated at Marlborough, and was formerly in the militia. In 1883 he came into £45,000, and had since lived a life of pleasure. The allegation brought against him by Charles Parker was absolutely untrue.
At the close of his examination Wilde again took his place in the dock, and Alfred Taylor, his companion, entered the witness-box. He said he was educated at Marlborough, and was formerly in the militia. In 1883 he came into £45,000, and had since lived a life of pleasure. The allegation brought against him by Charles Parker was absolutely untrue.
At the close of his examination Wilde again took his place in the dock, and Alfred Taylor, his companion, entered the witness-box. He said he was educated at Marlborough; and was formerly in the Militia. In 1883 he came into £45,000, and had since led a life of pleasure. The allegation brought against him by Chas Parker was absolutely untrue.
Alfred Taylor, his companion, entered the witness box. He said he was educated at Marlborough; and was formerly in the Militia. In 1883 he came into £45,000, and had since lived a life of pleasure. The allegation brought against him by Chas Parker was absolutely untrue.
Sir Edward Clarke again addressed the jury. He said the Crown rested their case upon the stained evidence of a band of blackmailers, and had Mr Oscar Wilde been a guilty man he would have avoided that ordeal of the witness box. He trusted to letters of the witness Edward Shelley to erase impressions created by his evidence.
Sir Edward Clarke again addressed the jury. He said the Crown rested their case upon the tainted evidence of a band of blackmailers, and had Mr Oscar Wilde been a guilty man he would have avoided the ordeal of the witness box. He trusted to letters of the witness Edward Shelley to erase impressions created by his evidence.
Mr Grain addressed the jury for Taylor, and Mr Gill then replied on the whole case.
Mr Grain addressed the jury for Taylor, and Mr Gill replied on the whole case.
Justice Charles began his summing up on Wednesday by remarking that the prosecuting counsel had acted wisely in withdrawing the charge of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guity. It was a rule of law that the uncorroborative testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witness in this case in the sense in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins and Wood has been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices, the jury considering the detalls of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on Wilde v. Queensberry, and passing to the literary part of the case, said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unfavourable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorien Gray." In the last century noble minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for "The Priest and the Acolyte," the work of another. He called particular attention to Wilde's answers given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgment. The learned Judge next approached consideration of the charges in the order of their dates. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. Long quotations were read by his Lordship from Shelley's letters, in one of which the writer said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane." To deal with Shelley' evidence would be an interesting and responsible part of the jury's duty. There was proof of excitability, and Shelley had told a nauseous tale, but to talk of him as an insane man would be to exaggerate the effect of the letters. His Lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimilico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy hotel incident was a most anxious part of the inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the character of the Crown witnesses. After a reference to the part played by Wood in the matter of the Douglas and Wilde letters, his Lordship reviewed the evidence against Taylor in respect of the alleged acts of indecency with Charles and William Parker. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence.
Mr Justice Charles began his summing up to the jury by remarking that the prosecuting counsel had acted wisely in withdrawing the charge of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guilty. It was a rule of law that the uncorroborative testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the cease in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins, and Wood had been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices, the jury, in considering the details of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on Wilde v. Queensberry, and passing to the literary part of the case, said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unfavorable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorien Gray." In the last century noble minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for "The Priest and the Acolyte," the work of another. He called particular attention to Wilde's answers given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgement. The learned Judge next approached consideration of the charges in the order of their dates, Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. Long quotations were read by his Lordship from Shelley's letters, in one of which the writer said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane." To deal with Shelley's evidence would be an interesting and responsible part of the jury's duty. There was proof of excitability, and Shelley had told a nauseous tale, but to talk of him as an insane man would be to exaggerate the effect of the letters. His Lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimilico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy hotel incident was a most anxious part of inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the the character of the Crown witnesses. After a reference to the part played by Wood in the matter of the Douglas and Wilde letters, his Lordship reviewed the evidence against Taylor in respect of the alleged acts of indecency with Charles and William Parker. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence.
Mr Justice Charles began his summing up to the jury by remarking that the prosecuting counsel had acted wisely in withdrawing the charge of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guilty. It was a rule of law that uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the sense in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins, and Wood had been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices. The jury, in considering the details of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on Wilde v Queensberry, and passing to the literary part of the case said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unfavourable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of Dorien Grey. In the last century the noble-minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for the Priest and Acolyte the work of another. He called particular attention to Wile's answers given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgment. The learned judge next approached the consideration of the charges in the order of their date. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. Long quotations were read by his lordship from Shelley's letters, in one of which the writer said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane." To deal with Shelley's evidence would be an interesting and responsible part of the jury's duty. There was proof of excitability, and Shelley had told a nauseous tale, but to talk of him as an insane man, would be to exaggerate the effect of the letters. His lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimlico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy Hotel evidence was a most anxious part of the inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the character of the Crown witnesses. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence.
Mr Justice Charles began his summing up to the jury by remarking that the prosecuting counsel had acted wisely in withdrawing the charge of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guilty. It was a rule of law that uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the sense in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins, and Wood had been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices. The jury, in considering the details of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on Wilde v Queensberry, and passing to the literary part of the case said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unfavourable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of Dorien Grey. In the last century the noble-minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for the Priest and Acolyte the work of another. He called particular attention to Wilde’s answers given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgment. The learned judge next approached the consideration of charges in the order of their date. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. Long quotations were read by his lordship from Shelley’s letters, in one of which the writer said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane." To deal with Shelley’s evidence would be an interesting and responsible part of a jury’s duty. There was proof of excitability, and Shelley had told a nauseous tale, but to talk of him as an insane man, would be to exaggerate the effect of the letters. His lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimlico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy Hotel evidence was a most anxious part of the inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the character of the Crown witnesses. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence.
Mr. Justice CHARLES began his summing up to the jury by remarking that the prosecuting counsel of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guilty. It was a rule of law that uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the sense in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins, and Wood had been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices, the jury, in considering the details of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on the Wilde v. Queensberry case, and passing to the literary part of the case said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unavoidable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorian Grey." In the last century noble minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for "The Priest and Acolyte," the work of another. He called particular attention to Wilde’s answer given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgment. The learned judge next approached the consideration of the charges in the order of their date. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. His Lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimlico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy Hotel evidence was a most anxious part of the inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the character of the Crown witnesses. After a reference to the part played by Wood in the matter of the Douglas and Wilde letters, his Lordship reviewed the evidence against Taylor. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence. The jury retired to consider their verdict at 1.25. At 5.15 the jury returned into court and informed his Lordship that they could not agree upon certain of the questions submitted to them. Replying to questions later, the foreman said there was no possibility of an agreement. Upon the count of conspiracy his Lordship had early in the day directed a verdict of not guilty, and a formal finding was now arrived at, but the Judge observed that all the material questions were unhappily undecided. He discharged the jury, and refused to bail Wilde and Taylor, and informed Sir E. Clarke that an application must be made in Chambers.
The jury retired to consider their verdict at 1.35.
At 5.15 the jury returned into Court and informed his Lordship that they could not agree upon certain of the questions submitted to them.
At 5.15 the jury returned into Court and informed his Lordship that they could not agree upon certain of the questions submitted to them.
At 5.15 the jury returned into court, and informed his lordship that they could not agree upon certain of the questions submitted to them. Replying to questions later, the foreman said that there was no possibility of agreement.
Replying to questions later, the foremen said there was no possibility of agreement.
Replying to questions later, the foreman said there was no possibility of agreement.
Upon the count of conspiracy his Lordship had early in the day directed a verdict of not guilty, and a formal finding was now arrived at on this and other minor counts, but the Judge observed tbat all material questions were unhappily undecided. He discharged the jury and refused to bail Wilde and Taylor, informing Sir E. Clarke that the application must be made in chambers.
Upon the count of conspiracy his Lordship had early in the day directed a verdict of not guilty, and a formal finding was now arrived at on this and other minor counts, but the Judge observed that all material questions were unhappily undecided. He discharged the jury and refused to bail Wilde and Taylor, informing Sir E. Clarke that the application must be made in chambers.
Upon the count of conspiracy his Lordship had early in the day directed a verdict of not guilty, and a formal finding was now arrived at on this and minor counts, but the judge observed that all the material questions were unhappily undecided. He discharged the jury and refused to bail Wilde and Taylor, informing Sir E Clarke that the application must be made in Chambers.
Mr Gill, who appeared for the Treasury in the prosecution, notified that the case would be retried next Session.
Mr Gill, who appeared for the Treasury in the prosecution, notified that the case would be retried next Session.
Thu prisoners, who had been brought back to court for the purpose of hearing the results, were then removed in custody. Wilde engaged in conversation for a few minutes with one of his legal representatives.
The prisoners, who had been brought back to court for the purpose of hearing the result, were then removed in custody. Wilde engaged in conversation for a few minutes with one of his legal representatives.
Mr Gill, who appeared for the Treasury in the prosecution, notified that the case would be retried next session. The prisoners, who had been brought back to court for the purpose of hearing the result, were then removed in custody. Wilde engaged in conversation for a few minutes with one of his legal representatives.