The Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday, April 26, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
LATEST BUFF EDITION.
THE LONDON SCANDAL.
TRIAL OF OSCAR WILDE AND TAYLOR.
THE CASE FOR THE
PROSECUTION.
Oscar Wilde (40), author, and Alfred Taylor (33), no occupation, appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day on several indictments charging them with committing grave offences.
London, Friday.Oscar Wilde, forty, author, and Alfred Taylor, thirty-three, no occupation, appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day, charged under three different indictments with conspiring to commit and committing criminal offences.
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day on the several indictments preferred against them.
Oscar Wilde, 40, and Alfred Taylor, 33, appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court, to-day, to meet the charges made against them.
The approaches to the Old Bailey presented much the same aspect as during the hearing of the action Wilde v. the Marquess of Queensberry, out of which the present prosecution has arisen, but by some alteration of the arrangements for admission made by the Under-Sheriff the crowding within the building was less. There was no legion of junior members of the bar blocking up the passages, although the learned gentleman elbowed each other in the seats usually reserved for counsel. The public galleries were filled long before the jury filed into their box.
The approaches to the Old Bailey presented much the same aspect as during the hearing of the action of Wilde v the Marquis of Queensberry, out of which the present action has arisen, but by some alteration of the arrangements for admission made by the Under Sheriff the crowding within the building was less. There was no legion of junior members of the Bar blocking up the passages, although the learned gentlemen elbowed each other in the seats usually reserved for counsel. The public galleries were filled long before the jury filed into their box.
Oscar Wilde, 40, author; and Alfred Taylor, 33; no occupation, appeared in the Central Criminal Court, London, today. The approaches to the Old Bailey presented much the same aspect as during the heading of the action of Wilde v. The Marquis of Queensberry, out of which the present action has arisen, but by some alteration of the arrangements for admission made by the Under Sheriff the crowding within the building was less. There was no legion of junior members of the Bar blocking up the passages, although the learned gentlemen elbowed each other in the seats usually reserved for counsel. The public galleries were filled long before the jury filed into their box.
Mr. C.F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A. Gill conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Treasury. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde. Taylor was represented by Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor. Mr. Kershaw held a watching brief for the witness Sidney Mayor.
Mr CF Gill, Mr Horace Avory, and Mr A Gill conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Treasury. Sir Edward Clarke, Q C. M P; Mr Mathews, and Mr Travers Humphreys defended Wilde. Taylor was represented by Mr J P Grain and Mr Paul Taylor. Mr Ker shaw held a watching brief for the witness, Sidney Mavor.
Mr C F Gill, Mr Horace Avory, and Mr A Gill conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Treasury. Sir Edward Clarke, Q C, M P; Mr Mathews, and Mr Travers Humphreys defended Wilde. Taylor was represented by Mr J P Grain and Mr Paul Taylor. Mr Kershaw held a watching brief for the witness, Sidney Mavor.
Mr. C. F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A. Gill appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Treasury. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C, M.P., Mr. C. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde, and Mr. J. P. Grain amid Mr. T. Taylor the prisoner Taylor. Mr. Kershaw holds a watching brief in the interests of the witness Sidney Mavor.
Mr. C.F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A. Gill had charge of prosecution on behalf of the public prosecutor. Wilde was defended by Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys. Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor appeared for the prisoner Taylor, and Mr Leonard Kershaw held a watching brief for the witness Mavor.
Mr. Justice Charles took his seat at half-past ten o'clock. Wilde, on taking his place in the dock, appeared pale and ill. He was attired as he appeared at Bow Street, and wore a dark blue overcoat, with velvet-collar and cuffs. He leaned languidly on the bar. Taylor, whose greatcoat of light brown cloth was in strong contrast with the darker attire of his companion, surveyed the Court with a somewhat impassive air, his gloved hands joined in front of him.
Wilde, on taking his place in the dock, appeared pale and ill. He was attired as he appeared at Bow Street, and wore a dark blue overcoat, with velvet collar and cuffs. He leaned languidly on the bar. Taylor, great coat of light brown cloth was in strong contrast to the darker attire of his companion, surveyed the court with a somewhat impassive air, his gloved hands joined in front of him. The accused being called upon to answer.
The accused being called upon to answer, Sir E. Clarke rose and made a preliminary objection, the gist of which was that neither of them could be asked to plead, because one part of the indictment being under the Criminal Law Amendment Act they could upon that be competent witnesses. Upon the charge of conspiracy, which was another part of the indictment, they could not be competent witnesses. The learned counsel based his argument upon certain cases in the law reports, and he submitted a demurrer on the ground that the counts had not been lawfully joined.
Sir E Clarke rose and made a preliminary objection, the gist of which was that neither of them could be asked to plead, because, one part of the indictment being under the Criminal Law Amendment Act they could upon that he competent witnesses. Upon the charge of conspiracy, which was another part of the indictment they could not be competent witnesses.The learned counsel based his arguments upon certain cases in the law reports, and he submitted a demurrer on the ground that the counts had not been lawfully joined.
Mr. Gill having replied, his Lordship said there was very little assistance from authorities, as there were broad distinctions between this case and those upon which decisions had been given. He, however, thought that the case Queen v. Owen, to which attention had been called by Mr. Gill, pionted against his acceding to the request of Sir Edward Clarke. Though he felt the inconvenience of the present state of things, as already expressed by the late Lord Chief Justice in the Queen v. Whelan case, he did not agree to the view of the learned counsel that the several counts could not be lawfully joined.
Mr Gill having replied — His Lordship said there was very little assistance from the authorities, as there were broad distinctions between this case and those upon which decisions had been given. He, however, thought that the case of the Queen v Owen, to which attention had been called by Mr Gill, pointed against his acceding to the request of Sir Edward Clarke. Though he felt into the inconvenience of the present seats of things, as already expressed by the late Lord Chief Justice in the Queen w Whalen, he did not agree to the view of the learned counsel that the several counts could not be lawfully joined.
His Lordship said there was very little assistance from the authorities, as there were broad distinctions between this case and those upon which decisions had been given. He, however, thought the case of the Queen v Owen, to which attention had been called by Mr Gill, pointed against his acceding to the request of Sir Edward Clarke. Though he felt the inconvenience of the present state of things, as already expressed by the late Lord Chief Justice in the Queen v Whelan, he did not agree to the view of the learned counsel that the several counts could not be lawfully joined.
Prisoners were accordingly asked to plead, and to the several indictments they replied "Not guilty."
The prisoners were accordingly asked to plead, and to the several indictments they replied "Not guilty."
The prisoners were accordingly asked to plead and to the several indictments they replied "Not guilty."
Sir E. Clarke then raised the point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy, or upon the count of misdemeanour.
Sir E Clarke then raised the point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy or upon the count of misdemeanour.
Sir E Clarke then raised the point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy or upon the count of misdemeanor.
Sir E Clarke then raised the further point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy or of misdemeanour.
SIB EDWARD CLARKE then asked Mr. Justice Charles to put the prosecution to the election whether they would proceed on the counts for conspiracy or on the other counts.
Mr. Gill submitted that it was entirely in the discretion of the learned judge.
His Lordship said he agreed, aud he felt it impossible in this case to put the prosecution to elect as to which of the counts they would offer evidence upon.
Mr. Gill then opened to the jury, intimating at the outset that he was there to conduct the prosecution by the direction of the Public Prosecutor. Though much had been published about the case, he appealed to them to approach its consideration without bias. Mr. Gill briefly sketched the circumstances of the action of Wilde v. the Marquess of Queensberry, the subsequent arrest of Wilde, and the apprehension of Taylor during the preliminary examination of Wilde at Bow Street, prefacing his statements with the observation that it was an extraordinary fact that a man like Wilde should have been in contact at all with Taylor. The learned counsel detailed the circumstances under which Charles Parkor, valet, and William Parker, groom, were introduced to Wilde by his fellow prisoner, and stated the nature of the evidence as to their subsequent relations at various addresses in London. Passing from the incident of the mock wedding between Taylor and Charles Parker, Mr. Gill traced their later movements, Parker's visits to Wilde, and the relations of the two prisoners as disclosed by correspondence in possession of the prosecution. The allegations in respect to other persons mentioned in the several counts of the indictment were next described at considerable length, and in this connection Wilde's visit to Paris was alluded to, also his conduct in making presents and in giving money Counsel next adverted to the alleged Savoy Hotel incidents, and finished his address at half-past twelve.
Mr Gill submitted that it was entirely for the discretion of the learned judge. His lordship said he agreed, and he felt it impossible in this case to put the prosecution to the election as to which of the counts they would offer evidence upon. Mr Gill then opened to the jury, intimating at the outset that he was there to conduct the prosecution by the direction of the Public Prosecutor. Though much had been published about the case, he appealed to them to approach its conduction without bias. He briefly sketched the circumstances of the action of Wilde v the Marquis of Queensberry, the subsequent arrest of Wilde, and the apprehension of Taylor during the preliminary examination of Wilde at Bow street, prefacing his statement with the observation that it was an extraordinary fact that a man like Wilde should have been in contact at all with Taylor. The learned counsel detailed the circumstances under which Charles Parker, valet, and William Parker, groom, were introduced to Wilde by his fellow prisoner, and stated the stature of the evidence as to their subsequent relations at various addresses in London. Passing from the incident of the mock wedding between Taylor and Charles Parker, Mr Gill traced their later movements, Parker’s visit to Wilde, and the relations of the two prisoners as disclosed by correspondence in possession of the prosecution. The allegations to other persons mentioned in the several counts in the indictment were next described as at considerable length, and in this connection Wilde’s visit to Paris were alluded to, also his conduct in making presents and in giving money. Counsel next adverted to the alleged Savoy Hotel incidents. The youth, Charles Parker, valet, was the first witness sworn. He described his introduction to Oscar Wilde by Taylor, and repeated the evidence given by him at Bow street.
Mr Gill submitted that it was entirely for the discretion of the learned judge. His lordship said he agreed, and he felt it impossible in this case to put the prosecution to the election as to which of the. Counts they would offer evidence upon. Mr Gill then opened to the jury, intimating at the outside that he was there to conduct the prosecution by the direction of the Public Prosecutor. Though much had been published about the case, he appealed to them to approach its conduction without bas. He briefly sketched the circumstances of the actions of Wilde v the Marquis of Queensberry, the subsequent arrest of Wilde, and the apprehension of Taylor during the preliminary examination of Wilde at Bow street, prefacing his statements with the aberration that it was an extraordinary fact that a man like Wilde should have been in contact at all with Taylor. The learned counsel detailed the circumstances under which Charles Parker, valet, and William Parker, groom, were introduced to Wilde by this fellow prisoner, and stated the nature of the evidence as to their subsequent relations at various addresses in London, Passing from the incident of the mock wedding between Taylor and Charles Parker, Mr Gil traced their later movements, Parker’s visit to Wilde, and the relations of the two prisoners as disclosed by correspondence in possession of the prosecution. The allegations to other persons mentioned in the several counts in the indictment were next described as at considerable length, and in this connection Wilde’s visit to Paris was alluded to, also his conduct in making presents and giving money. Counsel next adverted to the alleged Savoy Hotel incidents. The youth, Charles Parker, valet, was the first witness sworn. He described his introduction to Oscar Wilde by Taylor, and repeated the evidence given by him at Bow street.
During the greater part of it Wilde had sat disconsolately, with a hand to the right side of his face. He moved restlessly from time to time. Taylor closely followed Mr. Gill as he passed from point to point of the story.
The youth, Charles Parker, valet, was the first witness sworn. He described his introduction to Oscar Wilde by Taylor as a result of an arrangement at St. James's Restaurant. He also detailed various acts. Counsel took the witness to another part of the case—that against Taylor. Wilde gave him a cigarette case and a gold ring, Witness testified to visits which he had made to Wilde, and spoke of certain acts as to which details were not adduced at Bow Street. He ceased to associate with the prisoner Taylor in 1894, and went away to the country where he embarked upon another occupation. He enlisted.
The Court adjourned for luncheon.
The revelations made by the previous witness caused considerable sensation, and were of a more shocking character than those given before the magistrate.
On the Court resuming after luncheon Sir E. Clarke began his cross-examination of Parker, who said it was after he joined his regiment that Mr. Russell, the solicitor, found him. He had not in the meantime communicated with any person. He had spoken in his examination at Bow Street of having received £30 as part of a sum of money extorted from a gentleman. The men who extorted the money were Wood and Allen.
After luncheon Sir Edward Clarke began his examination of Parker, who said it was after he joined his regiment that Mr Russell, the solicitor, found him. He had not in the meantime communicated with any person. He had spoken in his examination at Bow street of having received £30 as part of a sum of money extorted from a gentleman upon an allegation of misconduct with witness. The men who extorted the money were Wood and Allen. The misconduct took place at Camera square.
After luncheon Sir Edward Clarke began his examination of Parker, who said it was after he joined his regiment that Mr Russell, the solicitor, found him. He had not in the meantime communication with any person. He had spoken in his examination at Bow street of having received £30 as part of a sum of money extorted from a gentleman upon an allegation of misconduct with witness. The men who extorted the money were Wood and Allen. The misconduct took place at Camera square.
How much money did Wood and Allen get?—£300 or £400. (Sensation.)
When you had spent your portion you went into the army?—Yes. I spent it in three or four days.
When you had spent your portion you went into the army? Yes, I spent it in three or four days.
When you had spent your portion you went into the army? Yes, I spent it in three or four days.
At Sir Edward's request Parker wrote the name of the gentleman in whose employ he had been as a valet before meeting Taylor. The name was handed to his Lordship, the learned counsel remarking that as the gentleman had no connection whatever with this case there could be no object in mentioning the name in open court.
At Sir Edward Clarke’s request Parker wrote the name of the gentleman in whose employ he had been as valet before meeting Taylor. The name was handed to his Lordship, the learned counsel remarking that as the gentleman had no connection whatever with this case there could be no object in mentioning the name in open court.
At Sir Edward Clarke’s request Parker wrote the name of the gentleman in whose employ he had been as valet before meeting Taylor. The name was handed to his Lordship, the learned counsel remarking that as the gentleman had no connection whatever with this case there could be no object in mentioning the name in open court.
Replying to further questions Parker said that after leaving this particular gentleman's employ, he received a letter from him charging him with stealing clothing. He sent the articles back to his late employer. He told Wilde about his own parentage, and expressed a wish to go on the stage. Wilde's rooms in St. James's Place were very "public," and servants came in and out.
Replying to further questions, Parker said that after leaving this particular gentleman’s employ he received a letter from him charging him with stealing clothing. He sent the articles back to his late employer. He told Wilde about his own parentage, and expressed a wish to go on the stage.
Replying to further questions, Parker said that after leaving this particular gentleman’s employ he received a letter from him charging him with stealing clothing. He sent the articles back to his late employer. He told Wilde about his own parentage, and expressed a wish to go on the stage. He knew of the man Wood having got possession of some letters of Wilde, which he had found in some clothes given to him. Wilde’s rooms in St James’s place were very "public," and servants came in and out.
Do you mean to assert that in rooms thus described this conduct went on again and again?—Yes.
Do you mean to assert that in the rooms thus described this sort of conduct went on again and again? Yes.
Do you mean to assert that in the rooms thus described this sort of conduct went on again and again? Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr Grain: When witness made Taylor's acquaintance Wood visited witness at Camera Square frequently.
Was £30 the only sum you ever received under similar circumstances?—Yes.
Was £30 the only sum you ever received under similar circumstances? Yes.
Was £30 the only sum you over received under similar circumstances? Yes.
What means of subsistence had you when you met Taylor in St. James's Restaurant?—I had just left a situation.
What means of subsistence had you when you met Taylor in St James’s Restaurant? I had just left a situation.
What means of subsistence had you when you met Taylor in St James’s Restaurant? I had just left a situation.
How much money had you in your possession?—A few shillings.
Further cross-examined: He went to Paris with an operatic composer in 1893. It was as valet that he went. He was given two louis a week.
Did you occupy the same apartments?—No. I stayed in a different place. I knew a man named Burton, and went with him to Monte Carlo.
Re-examined by Mr. Gill: He knew Lord A. Douglas. The letters which Wood had possession of were supposed to be letters received by Lord A. Douglas from Wilde.
Re-examined by Mr Gill—He knew neither Wood, Allen, or Burton until he became acquainted with Taylor. He knew Lord A Douglas. The letters which Woods had possession of were supposed to be letters received by Lord A Douglas from Wilde.
Re-examined by Mr Gill — He knew neither Wood, Allen, or Burton until he became acquainted with Taylor. He knew Lord A Douglas. The letters which Woods had possession of were supposed to be letters received by Lord A Douglas from Wilde.
Mr. Gill called attention to part of Parker's deposition at Bow Street, and examined the witness upon it with the view to prove there was no discrepancy in his testimony as a whole.
Mr Gill called attention to another part of Parker’s deposition at Bow street, and examined the witness upon it with the view to prove that there was no discrepancy in his testimony as a whole.
Mr Gill called attention to another part of Parker’s deposition at Bow street, and examined the witness upon it with the view to prove that there was no discrepancy in his testimony as a whole.
William Parker, a groom, and Mrs. Grant, a married woman, also gave evidence.
The case was adjourned.
LORD ALFRED DOUGLAS.
The Central News is requested by Lord Alfred Douglas to state that, in response to an urgent telegram from his mother, he started to-day for Italy to see her, but hopes to return to London in a few days.
The Central News is requested by Lord Alfred Douglas to state that in response to an urgent telegram from his mother he started on Friday for Italy to see her, but hopes to return to London in a few days.
We are requested by Lord Alfred Douglas to state that in response to an urgent telegram from his mother he started to-day for Italy to see her, but hopes to return to London in a few days.