The Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday, April 19, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
TO-DAY'S LATE NEWS.
THE TRIAL OF OSCAR WILDE.
PRISONERS COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.
BAIL AGAIN REFUSED.
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor were again placed in the dock at Bow Street to-day—before Sir John Bridge—on charges of indecency. There was again a crowded attendance of the public, the Extradition Court being inconveniently filled.
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor were again placed in the dock at Bow street today before Sir John Bridge on a charge of indecency. There was again a crowded attendance of the public, the Extradition Court being inconveniently filled when the magistrate took his seat.
When the magistrate took his seat Mr. Arthur Newton, the solicitor defending Taylor, was the first legal gentleman to put in an appearance, Mr. J. P. Grain, barrister, arriving almost immediately after, and, as the learned counsel had not previously held a brief in the case, there was some speculation as to whom he was concerned for. This was set at rest by the announcement that Mr. Grain was watching the proceedings in the interests of a witness already examined—namely, Mr. Sydney Mayor. Mr. Newton and Mr. Grain were holding a brief consultation when Mr. Travers Humphreys, who is acting as Sir Edward Clarke's junior in the defence of Wilde, took his seat at the barristers' table.
Mr. Humphreys passed a note to Mr. Newton, and following this the two gentlemen had a conversation as to the proposed course of procedure.
Mr. C.F. Gill, instructed by the Hon. Hamilton Cuffe, of the Treasury, again conducted the prosecution. The prisoners were brought into court at twenty minutes past twelve o'clock. Wilde, who was more pallid and much thinner than when he last appeared in the dock, stood a moment with a disconsolate air. On being given permission to be seated, he threw himself upon the bench with a gesture of weariness and rested his head heavily upon his arm. Taylor presented much the same appearance as before, and listened eagerly to every question put by counsel. He smiled on hearing replies affecting himself, and with great alertness prompted his solicitor when he thought occasion required his interference.
Charles Parker was first recalled, and was further examined by Mr. Gill. In answer to a question he said, "I forget now."
Mr. Gill: Don't say you forget now. You made statements about this, you know, more than once.
Witness, after hesitating for some time, then admitted that Taylor did on once occasion make a proposition to him.
Mr. Gill: Do you remember him telling you about a man named Charlie Mason?—Yes.
William Parker was next recalled, and gave evidence with regard to 13, Little College Street.
Mr. Frederick Curley deposed that he was a superannuated detective inspector, and he had acted for Messrs. Day & Russell, solicitors, in certain inquiries. As a result of those inquiries he visited 3, Chapel Street, Park Walk, a house occupied by Mrs. Gray. After a statement had been taken from Mrs. Gray he went to Chapel Street, and she handed him a leather hat-box containing papers. Among them were certain papers selected for the purposes of this case. The witness having identified these, Mr. Gill put further questions upon them. Two were cheques signed Sidney Mayor, the first for 30s. and the second for £2, March 7, 1893. A telegram despatched from 369, Strand, to Alfred Taylor, 13, Little College Street, Westminster, "Can you call at six o'clock?"—Oscar, Savoy"; another August 21, 1893, from Goring, Reading, to Taylor, 13, Little College Street, Westminster, "Cannot manage the dinner tomorrow. Am very sorry.—Oscar"; another to Alfred Taylor, "Obliged to see Tree at five o'clock, so don't come to Savoy. Let me know at once about Fred.—Oscar"; a Christmas card from Sidney Mayor; and a piece of paper with the address 10 and 11, St. James's Place.
Mr. Charles Robinson, bookkeeper at the Savoy Hotel, said Wilde stayed there from the 2nd to the 29th March, 1893. Witness produced a duplicate of the bill supplied to the prisoner.
Mr. Theodore Leigh, clerk at the Marylebone Branch of the London and Westminster Bank, produced a certified copy of the account of the prisoner, Alfred Waterhouse Somerset Taylor, from 1st January, 1892, to 29th December, 1893. He did not know Taylor by sight.
Mr. Newton: There will be no dispute about it.
Sir John Bridge: The only name I have now before me is "Alfred Taylor."
Mr. Newton: There will be no dispute about the name, sir?
Mr. Reginald William Brooks, a clerk in the Westminster branch of the London and Westminster Bank, produced a certified copy of Wilde's account from the end of 1892 to 9th April of this year.
Mr. J W. Lehmann, shorthand writer, said he, in conjunction with Mr. Howard, took a full shorthand note of the trial which took place at the Central Criminal Court on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th of April—Queen against Lord Queensberry. He put in the transcript of the notes he took on the first two days.
Mr. E. Howard also put in the transcript of the notes he took at the trial.
Mr. Gill said that would be the case for the prosecution. He then handed to Sir John Bridge a document which he said contained a list of the charges upon which he asked that the prisoners should be committed for trial.
Mr Gill intimated that the case for the prosecution was now closed, and handed to Sir John a document containing a long list of charges upon which he asked that both prisoners should be committed.
Sir John Bridge having read the document handed it to the clerk to be read aloud, and, addressing the prisoners, said: "These are the charges which you have got to answer."
The clerk then read the list of alleged offences, which included charges of conspiracy against both prisoners to commit acts of gross indecency with other male prisoners. There was a further allegation against Taylor that he did in September. 1893, attempt to commit an offence with one Charles Parker, and that in April, 1893, he attempted to commit an offence with one William Parker.
Sir John Bridge, then addressing Wilde, asked him whether he wished to say anything.
After the hearing of further evidence, Sir John Bridge, addressing Wilde, asked him whether he wished to say anything.
Wilde: Not at present, your Worship.
Sir John: Do you wish to say anything, Taylor?
Mr. Newton replied that on behalf of Taylor he wished to take his Worship's ruling as to whether there was really any evidence upon which he could commit Taylor for what was called an attempt to perpetrate an offence. He would say nothing about the misdemeanour. The charge rested absolutely upon the evidence of two persons who he was sure Sir John would agree were in the highest sense of the word discredited persons. There was no corroboration beyond the fact that undoubtedly they had stayed in the same place. Before he committed Taylor on that very serious matter he thought his Worship would come to the conclusion that there ought to be some evidence other than that of those two persons.
Sir John Bridge thought the evidence on the whole was corroborated—certainly enough to commit.
Mr. Travis Humphreys then applied for bail on behalf of Wilde, who, he said, was prepared to find substantial sureties. There was no charge of felony in Wilde's case—merely of misdemeanour.
Mr Travers Humphreys then applied for bail on behalf of Wilde, who, he said, was prepared to find substantial sureties. There was no charge of felony in Wilde’s case — merely of misdemeanor.
Mr Travers Humphreys then applied for bail on behalf of Wilde, and pointed out that his client was not charged with felony but with misdemeanour.
Sir John said it was a matter within his discretion.
Mr. Newton also applied for bail on behalf of Taylor.
Sir John said that in the exercise of his discretion he had to consider the gravity of the offence and the strength of the evidence. With regard to the offence, there was none to his mind so grave. As to the evidence adduced he would not say more than that he did not think it slight. Therefore he must refuse to accede to the application for bail.
Sir John Said that in the exercise of his discretion he had to consider the gravity of the offence and the strength of the evidence. With regard to the offence there was none to his mind so grave. As to the evidence adduced he would not say more than that he did not take it as slight, therefore he must refused to accede to the application for bail.
Prisoners were then formally committed to take their trial at the Central Criminal Court, and were conducted back to the cells.
Prisoners were then formally committed to take their trial at the Central Criminal Court, and were conducted back to the cells.
LORD QUEENSBERRY AND MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN
The following letter from Lord Queensberry appears in to-day's Star:—
I have received many anonymous letters, and it is vexatious not to be able to reply to some of them. One, this morning, called my attention to a letter of Mr. Buchanan. Can it possibly have come from himself? Or was it inspired by him? I have not the pleasure of Mr. Buchanan's acquaintance, but he seems to address a question to myself in this letter to your paper of 16th April, when he says "Who are casting these stones?" and "Are they without sin," or those "who are notoriously corrupt? Is Mr. Buchanan himself without sin? I certainly don't claim to be so myself, though I was compelled to throw the first stone. Whether or not I am justly notoriously corrupt I am willing patiently to wait for the future to decide. Judge not that you be not judged—I would add until you were qualified to know all the actual facts of a man's life and what he really was.—Yours, &c., QUEENSBERRY.
I have received many anonymous letters, and it is vexatious not to be able to reply to some of them. One this morning called my attention to this letter of Mr. Buchanan. Can it possibly have come from himself? or was it inspired by him? I have not the pleasure of Mr. Buchanan's acquaintance, but he seems to address a question to myself in this letter to your paper of 15 April when he says, "Who are casting theses stones?" and are they without sin or those "who are notoriously corrupt"? Is Mr. Buchanan himself without sin? I certainly don't claim to be so myself, though I was compelled to throw the first stone. Whether or not I am justly notoriously corrupt I am willing patiently for the future to decide. Judge not that you be not judged-I would add, until you were qualified to know all the actual facts of a man's life, and what he really was. -Yours,&c., QUEENSBERRY. 18 April.