Quebec Morning Chronicle - Friday, April 5, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
The Wilde-Queensberry suit.
Continuation of the evidence.
London , April 4 — The trial of the action of Mr. Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed to day in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant in the witness box, Mr. Carson examining. Mr. Wilde, in answer to a question by Mr. Carson, said he had been introduced to the man Wood by a man named Taylor. He had frequently been to Taylor’s house to attend afternoon tea parties. Taylor, he said, had a habit of burning perfumes in the room, but candles or gas were not lighted upon every occasion of his visits at Taylor’s house. He had met a youth named Mavaria, who had since disappeared. Mr. Wilde said he was aware he had been arrested, but he did not know that Taylor had made himself notorious by his practice of introducing young men to older ones. Taylor, he admitted, however, had introduced him to five young men. None of these young men had any trade, profession or employment as far as he knew. He had made them presents of money for the reason that they were poor. Mr. Wilde was questioned in regard to his acquaintance with two brothers named Parker. He replied that he knew them and had dined with them He was not aware that one of them was a valet and the other a groom, both of them out of employment. He had given one of them money on the occasion of his taking tea with him (Wilde)in the latter’s private rooms in St. James street. His behavior was in no way improper. When Taylor and one of the Parkers were arrested they were in women’s clothes. They were charged with felonious practices.
Mr. Carson — "When you read of Taylor’s arrest did it make any difference in your friendship for him ?"
Mr. Carson: "When you read of Taylor's arrest did it make any difference in your friendship for him?"
Mr Carson - When you read of Taylor's arrest did it make any difference in your friendship for him?
Mr Carson - When you read of Taylor's arrest did it make any difference in your friendship for him?
Mr. Carson- "When you read of Taylor’s arrest did it make any difference in your friendship for him?"
Mr. Carson: "When you read of Taylor's arrest did it make any difference in your friendship for him?"
Mr. Carson-When you read of Taylor's arrest did it make any difference in your friendship for him?
Mr. Carson asked: "When you read of Taylor's arrest did it make any difference in your friendship for him?"
Mr. Wilde— "I was aware that Taylor had been arrested, but did not know that he had made himself notorious. I was greatly distressed and wrote to him that his arrest did not affect my friendship. Mr. Wilde admitted his acquaintanceship with a man named Atkins who was employed by a bookmaker. He first met Atkins at the rooms of a gentleman whose name he declined to give, but which he handed up to the Judge. The name was not made known by the Court. Mr. Wilde said he had called Atkins by his Christian name. Atkins went to Paris with him and they stopped together there. Wilde paid the fares, but he declared that it would be an infamous lie to say that they had been guilty of any misconduct. He had given Atkins £3 upon one occasion and £15 on another, besides he had given him presents of various articles. A youth named Maher had stopped with him in a hotel in London. Mr. Wilde said that he was a nice, charming young fellow. He gave Maber a cigarette case worth £4. He knew also a youth named Grainger, who was a servant to Lord Alfred Douglas, son of the Marquis of Queensberry.
Mr. Wilde admitted his acquaintanceship with a man named Atkins, who was employed by a bookmaker. He first met Atkins at the rooms of a gentleman whose name he declined to give, but which he handed up to the Judge. Wilde said he called Atkins by his Christian name. Atkins went to Paris with him, and they stopped together there. Wilde paid the fares, but he declared that it would be an infamous lie to say that they were guilty of misconduct. He had given Atkins £3 upon one occasion and £15 on another. Besides he had given him presents of various articles. A youth named Maber had stopped with him in a hotel in London. Wilde said he was a nice, charming young fellow. He gave Maber a cigarette case worth £4. He knew also a youth named Grainger, who was a servant to Lord Alfred Douglas, son of the Marquis of Queensberry.
Mr. Carson asked Mr. Wilde it he had ever kissed Grainger.
Mr. Wilde, who has succeeded remarkably hitherto in maintaining his composure, began to lose his temper. He declared that he had never kissed Grainger and denounced the insolence of Mr. Carson in pursuing the line of questioning he had followed. Mr. Carson, he said, had insulted him throughout the cross examination. In answer to a new line of questioning, Mr. Wilde said that a masseur had attended him at the Savoy Hotel, but denied that that person had ever seen him in a compromising situation. All of the young men who visited him at his rooms did so as his guests.
This ended the cross examination. It was noticed that during Mr. Carson’s questioning several names were written on slips of paper and handed up to the Court. Those names were not made public.
This ended the cross-examination. It was noticed that during Mr. Carson's questioning several names were written on slips of paper and handed up to the court. These names were not made public.
It was noticed that during Mr. Carson’s questioning several names were written upon slips of paper and handed up to the court. These names were not made public.
It was noticed that during Mr. Carson's questioning several names were written upon slips of paper and handed up to the court. These names were not made public.
Mr. Carson's questions to Wilde were in the main pitiless and unprintable. It was noticed that during Mr. Carson's questioning several names were written upon slips of paper and handed up to the court. These names were not made public.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in re-direct examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son. Lord Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Mr. Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis reviling Lord Roseberry, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the Peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis revilling Lord Roseberry, Mr. Gladstone, and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in re-direct examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son. Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone, and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlaneig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the marquis of Queensbury to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas in which the marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the marquis reviling Lord Rosebury, Mr. Gladstone and the queen, because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Albert [sic] Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlaurig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke questioned the witness in re-direct examination . He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis, reviling Lord Roseberry, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen, because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke in re-direct examination began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensbery to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the marquis reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
At the conclusion of the cross-examination, Sir Edward Clarke questioned Mr. Wilde in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the marquis reviling Lord Roseberry, Mr. Gladstone and the queen, because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in direct examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alred Douglass, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter, written by the Marquis, reviling Lord Roseberry, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen, because of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alref Douglass was not his son.
He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the marquis, reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone, and the Queen, because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters, the marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clark then questioned the witness in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen, because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig.
In direct examination letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry were read. In them the marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde and reviled Rosebery, Gladstone and the Queen for the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one letter the marquis declared Lord Douglas was not his own son.
Before leaving the witness stand, Mr. Wilde explained his fondness for the such type of males in their youth, by saying that he disliked the old and senile, while the company of the young, happy, careless and original had a wonderful charm. The mere fact of their youth was amazing.
Before leaving the witness stand Wilde explained his fondness for the society of males in their youth by saying that he disliked the old and sensible, while the company of the young, happy, careless, and original had a wonderful charm. The mere fact of their youth was amazing.
Before leaving the witness stand Wilde explained his fondness for the society of males in their youth by saying that be disliked the old and sensible, while the company of the young, happy, careless and original has a wonderful charm. The mere fact of their youth was amazing.
Before leaving the witness stand, Wilde explained his fondness for the society of males in their youth by saying that he disliked the old and sensible, while the company of the young, happy, careless and original youth had a wonderful charm. The mere fact of their youth was amazing.
Before leaving the stand Wilde explained his fondness for the society of youthful males by saying he disliked the old and sensible, while the company of the young, happy, careless and original had a wonderful charm.
At the conclusion of Wilde's redirect examination, the case for the prosecution was closed. Before leaving the witness stand, Wilde explained his fondness for the society of males in their youth by saying he disliked the old and sensible, while the company of the young-happy, careless and original-had a wonderful charm. The mere fact of their youth was amusing.
Before leaving the witness stand Wilde explained his liking for the society of young men by saying that he disliked the old and sensible, while the company of the young, happy, careless and original had a wonderful charm. The mere fact of their youth was amazing. At the close of Mr. Wilde's re-direct examination, the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s re-direct examination, the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde's redirect examination the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s re-direct examination, the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde's redirect examination the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde's redirect examination the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s redirect examination the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s redirect examination, the case of the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr Wilde’s redirect examination the case of the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr Wilde’s redirect examination the case of the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde's direct examination the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s redirect examination the case of the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s redirect examination the case for the prosecution closed.
At the conclusion of Wilde’s redirect examination, the prosecution closed.
London, April 4— At the conclusion of Wilde's re-direct examination the prosecution closed.
Mr. Carson, in opening the case for the defence, declared that all that the Marquis of Queensberry had said and done he stood by, withdrawing nothing. His sole object in all the steps he had taken was to save his son from the influence of Mr. Wilde, who, according to his own admissions, was a friend of a person who was known to be a procurer of boys for vicious purposes. Proof would be adduced that Mr. Wilde had carried on a criminal intercourse with the man Wood, who had now returned to England and who would give the true version of the negotiations carried on between himself and Wilde for the return to the latter of a letter written by Mr. Wilde. Mr. Carson referred to the letter from Mr. Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas as showing that Mr. Wilde had conceived for him an abominable passion. The Court here adjourned.
Mr. Carson, in opening the case for the defence, declared that all that the Marquis of Queensberry had said and done he stood by, withdrawing nothing. His sole object in all the steps he had taken was to save his son from the influence of Wilde. The man Woods had now returned to England, and would give the true version of the negotiations carried on between himself and Wilde for the return to the latter of a letter written by him. Mr. Carson referred to the letter from Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas as showing that Wilde had conceived for him an abominable passion. The court here adjourned.
Mr. Carson, in opening the case for the defence, declared that all that the Marquis of Queensberry had done and said he stood by, withdrawing nothing. His sole object in all the steps he had taken was to save his son from the influence of Wilde, who, according to his own admissions, was a friend of an infamous person. Wood had now returned to England, and would give the true version of the negotiations carried on between himself and Wilde for the return to the latter of a letter written by him. Mr. Carson referred to the letter from Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas.