The Standard - Thursday, May 2, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Charles.)
THE CASE OF WILDE AND TAYLOR.
The trial was resumed of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor, on an indictment charging them with certain misdemeanours.
The Judge summed up the case. He said the allegations made against the two Prisoners, both of whom were gentlemen of good education, whilst one held a very high position as a man of letters, were of a very grave and important character, and required of the Jury their most patient and careful investigation. They ought to discard absolutely from their minds everything that they had read or heard about the case outside the evidence that had been given, and consider the matter solely on the testimony that had been submitted by the Crown in support of the charges. Undoubtedly, if the acts suggested were committed, the persons who had been called to relate them were accomplices ; but by a longstanding and wholesome practice of our Criminal Courts no Prisoner could be convicted by a Jury of a criminal charge on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices. If Juries were to act on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice in an alleged crime, to what terrible dangers might innocent persons be exposed by designing persons ! In this case, therefore, they had to see if there had been any corroboration of the testimony of the young men who had been called ; and had there been none, it would have been his duty to direct the Jury to acquit ; but undoubtedly there was a certain amount of corroboration as to the acquaintanceship of the young men with the Prisoners, and also with reference to some other particulars of the narrative that they told. He would leave the case of each of these young men to the consideration of the Jury. In the case of one of the Parkers, Wood, and Atkins, they were not only accomplices, but they had very properly been called blackmailers, and with regard to Atkins, he himself had, in the hearing of the Jury, proved that he had told the grossest and most deliberate falsehoods.Therefore, when the Jury came to consider the value of their evidence they ought not to overlook the character of these persons. The verdict that was given in the Queensberry case had not the least binding effect on the Jury in the present case. As to what was called the literature branch of the case, the Jury ought not, in his opinion, to form any unfavourable impression by reason of the fact that Mr. Wilde was the author of the book " Dorian Gray," for the author ought not to be confounded with the persons that he creates in his work. Of course, the book was open to criticism ; but in a criminal charge it was very doubtful if it was open to the interpretations put upon it by the prosecution. Before the Jury formed any conclusion in this matter they ought to weigh most carefully the whole of tbe surroundings attending the production of the work, and especially the explanation that Mr. Wilde had given in connection with " Dorian Gray." Whilst some of our greatest writers had passed, long lives in writing literature of the highest genius — literature that nobody could read without advantage — other great writers, perfectly noble-minded men, somehow or another, had committed to paper writings which were most painful for any decent persons with ordinary modesty to read. The Jury ought not, therefore, to be unfavourably influenced in dealing with a work of this nature, having regard to the many other considerations that must not be lost sight of in dealing with the case. As to Shelley, he was no doubt an accomplice, if the acts related by him, in fact, occurred. It was a matter for the Jury to determine what amount of reliance ought to be placed on Shelley's testimony. As to Atkins, who proved himself to be an unscrupulous and untruthful witness, who had impudently told falsehood after falsehood, probably the Jury would think it unsafe to rely upon him at all. The Judge dealt with the other incidents referred to in support of the case for the prosecution, his observations having reference to the questions raised on the letters produced, written by Wilde, and as to the evidence of the men Wood and Parker relative to the various transactions in connection with the Prisoners, and as to the character and the conduct of these persons. He dealt also with the charges against Taylor. The case was an important one to the community, and if the Jury thought that the Prisoners were guilty they ought fearlessly to say so. On the other hand, innocent persons ought not to be convicted of crimes they had not committed. He was confident that the Jury would do justice between the Prisoners and the public. One of the Defendants was a man of high intellectual gifts, and one might reasonably suppose that he would have been incapable of such conduct. The same remark applied to Taylor; but still the Jury had to deal with the evidence, upon which they could alone return their verdict.
Mr. Justice Charles, on taking his seat, proceeded to sum up the case to the jury. He said that the allegations made against the two prisoners, both of whom were gentlemen of good education, whilst one held a very high position as a man of letters, were of a very grave and important character, and required of the jury their most patient and careful investigation. They ought to discard absolutely from their minds everything that they had read or heard about the case outside the evidence that had been given, and consider the matter solely on the testimony that had been submitted by the Crown in support of the charges. Undoubtedly if the acts suggested were committed the persons who had been called to relate them were accomplices,but by a long-standing and wholesome practice of our criminal courts no prisoner could be convicted by a jury of a criminal charge on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices. If juries were to act on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice in an alleged crime to what terrible dangers might innocent persons be exposed by designing persons. In this case, therefore, they had to see if there had been any corroboration of the testimony of the young men who had been called, and had there been none it would have been his duty to direct the jury to acquit, but undoubtedly there was a certain amount of corroboration as to the acquaintanceship of the young men with the prisoners and also with reference to some other particulars of the narrative they had told. He would leave the case of each of these young men to the consideration of the jury. In the case of one of the Parkers, Wood, and Atkins, they were not only accomplices, but they had very properly been called blackmailers, and with regard to Atkins, he himself had in the hearing of the jury proved that he had told the grossest and most deliberate falsehoods. Therefore, when the jury came to consider the value of their evidence they ought not to overlook the character of these persons. The verdict that was given in the Queensberry case had not the least binding effect on the jury in the present case. As to what was called the literature branch of the case, the jury ought not in his opinion, to form any unfavourable impression by reason of the fact that Mr. Wilde was the author of the book "Dorian Gray," for the author ought not to be confounded with the persons that he creates in his work. Of course, the book was open to criticism, but in a criminal charge it was very doubtful if it was to open to the interpretations put upon it by the prosecution. Before the jury formed any conclusion in this matter they ought to weigh most carefully the whole of the surroundings attending the production of the work, and especially the explanation that Mr. Wilde had given in connection with "Dorian Gray." Whilst some of our greatest writers had passed long lives in writing literature of the highest genius—literature that nobody could read without advantage—other great writers, perfectly noble-minded men, somehow or another had committed to paper writings which were most painful for any decent persons with ordinary modesty to read. The jury ought not therefore, to be unfavourably influenced in dealing with a work of this nature, having regard to the many other considerations that must not be lost sight of in dealing with the case. As to Shelley, he was no doubt an accomplice if the acts related by him in fact occurred. It was a matter for the jury to determine what amount of reliance ought to be placed on Shelley's testimony. As to Atkins, who proved himself to be an unscrupulous and untruthful witness, who had impudently told falsehood after falsehood, probably the jury would think it unsafe to rely upon him at all. His Lordship dealt with the other incidents referred to in support of the case for the prosecution, his observations having reference to the questions raised on the letters produced written by Wilde, and as to the evidence of the men Wood and Parker relative to the various transactions in connection with the prisoners, and as to the character and the conduct of these persons. He dealt also with the charges against Taylor. The case was an important one to the community, and if the jury thought that the prisoners were guilty they ought fearlessly to say so. On the other hand, innocent persons ought not to be convicted of crimes they had not committed. He was confident that the jury would do justice between the prisoners and the public. One of the defendants was a man of high intellectual gifts, and one might reasonably suppose that he would have been incapable of such conduct. The same remark applied to Taylor, but still the jury had to deal with the evidence, upon which they could alone return their verdict.
The Jury retired to consider their verdict at 25 minutes to two o'clock. At three o'clock a communication was brought from the Jury and conveyed by the Clerk of Arraigns to the Judge. At 3.20 a disagreement seemed probable. At 4.15 the Judge sent for the Clerk of the Arraigns, Mr. Avory, who proceeded to his Lordship's private room. Subsequently Mr. Avory went to the Jury, apparently with a communication from the Judge. Mr. Avory returned in a few minutes, and proceeded at once to the Judge's private room.
At 3-20 a disagreement seemed probable. At 4-15 the judge sent for the clerk of the arraigns. Mr. Avory, who proceeded to his Lordship's private room. Subsequently Mr. Avory went to the jury apparently with a communication from the judge. Mr. Avory returned in a few minutes, and proceeded at once to the judge's private room.
The Jury, after a deliberation of three hours and three-quarters, returned into Court, when the Foreman said they were unable to agree upon a verdict. There was no chance, in his opinion, of the Jury agreeing to a verdict.
The jury, after a deliberation of three hours and three-quarters, returned into court, when the foreman, who had caused a communication to be sent to tho judge, in reply to his lordship, said that they were unable to agree as to a verdict. There was no chance, in his opinion, of the jury agreeing to a verdict.
The jury, after a deliberation of three hours and three-quarters, returned into court, when the foreman, who had caused a communication to be sent to the judge in reply to his Lordship, said that they were unable to agree as to a verdict. There was no chance, in his opinion, of the jury agreeing in a verdict.
Sir E. Clarke asked that a verdict of acquittal on the conspiracy counts, upon which no evidence was offered, should be returned by the Jury.
Sir Edward Clarke asked that a verdict of acquittal on the conspiracy counts, upon which no evidence was offered, be returned by the jury.
Sir Edward Clarke asked that a verdict of acquittal on the conspiracy counts, upon which no evidence was offered, be returned by the jury.
The Judge said he would direct that an acquittal be entered on the record in regard to the conspiracy counts, and with respect of the counts referring to Wood and Atkins.
The Judge said that he would direct that an acquittal be entered on the record in regard to the conspiracy counts, and with respect of the counts referring to Wood and Atkins.
The judge said that he would direct that an acquittal be entered on the record in regard to the conspiracy counts, and with respect of the counts referring to Wood and Atkins.
Sir E. Clarke applied for bail for Oscar Wilde, observing that he did not think the Crown would offer any objection after what had occurred.
Sir E. Clarke applied for bail for Wilde. He did not think that the Crown would oppose the application after what had occurred.
Mr. Clarke Hall applied for bail for Taylor.
The Judge. — l do not feel able to accede to the application.
Mr. Gill said the case would certainly be tried again.
The Jury were discharged, and the case was ordered to stand over to the next Sessions. It was arranged that further application for bail should be made in the usual course to a Judge in Chambers. The Prisoners were removed to Holloway Prison.
In our report of the proceedings in this case in Monday's paper, by the accidental omission of the name of the witness Atkins, on his recall, an admission that he had been charged by the police with an offence, was erroneously attributed to the witness Shelley.