Dublin Evening Telegraph - Thursday, April 4, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
OSCAR WILDE AND THE MARQUIS.
The Singular Libel Action.
London, Thursday.
The hearing of the libel action brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was
resumed to-day at the Old Bailey.
London, Thursday. The hearing of the libel action brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was resumed to-day at the Old Bailey.
LONDON, THURSDAY.The hearing of the libel action brought by Mr. Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was resumed to-day at the Old Bailey.
The hearing of the libel action brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was resumed yesterday at the Old Bailey.
LONDON, FRIDAY.The hearing of the action brought by Mr. Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was resumed to-day at the Central Criminal Court.
London, Friday.The hearing of the action brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensbery was resumed to-day at the Central Criminal Court.
LONDON, Thursday Night.— The hearing of the charge of criminal libel brought by Mr. Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was continued at the Old Bailey to-day.
The hearing of the action brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was resumed to-day at the Central Criminal Court.
Mr Carson, Q C, resumed the cross-examination of Mr Wilde, who said he used to go to the upper part of a house, 13 Little College street, occupied by a man named Taylor. The rooms were artistically furnished, and perfumes were burnt. He never saw Taylor attired in a woman’s costume, or knew that he had one. He used to attend tea parties at Taylor’s rooms. Did not know that one of the men frequenting Taylor’s house had disappeared within the past week. He did not know that Taylor and a companion named Parker were arrested in a raid on a house in Fitzroy square last year. Taylor introduced witness to five young men, to all of whom he gave money. He invited a party to dinner at Kettner’s Restaurant. He was not aware that one of them was a valet and the other a coachman.
Mr Carson, Q C, resumed the cross-examination of Mr Wilde, who said he used to go to the upper part of a house 13 Little College street, occupied by a man named Taylor. The rooms were artistically furnished, and perfumes were burnt. He never saw Taylor attired in a woman’s costume, or knew that he had one. He used to attend tea parties at Taylor’s rooms. He did not know that one of the men frequenting Taylor’s house had disappeared within the past week. He did not know that Taylor and a companion named Parker were arrested in a raid on a house in Fitzroy square last year. Taylor introduced witness to five young men, to all of whom he gave money. He invited a party to dinner at Kettner’s Restaurant. He was not aware that one of them was a valet and the other a coachman.
Mr. CARSON, Q.C., resumed the cross-examination of Mr. Wilde, who said he used to go to the upper part of a house, 13 Little College Street, occupied by a man named Taylor. The rooms were artistically furnished and perfumes were burnt. He used to attend tea parties at Taylor’s rooms, but did not know that one of the men frequenting Taylor’s house had disappeared within the past week. He did not know that Taylor and a companion named Parker were arrested in a raid on a house in Fitzroy Square last year. Taylor introduced witness to five young men, to all of whom he gave money. He invited a party to dinner at Kettner’s Restaurant, but was not aware that one of them was a valet and the other a coachman.
Mr Carson—Was there plenty of champagne?
Witness—What gentleman would stint the valet? (Much laughter).
Further cross-examined, Mr Wilde denied driving one of these men to his own private room at the Savoy Hotel, and there committing indecency. He never paid visits to Parker at a house in Camera square. He did not know that certain men who were arrested in the Fitzroy square raid were connected with the Cleveland street scandals. The Fitzroy square arrest made no difference in his friendship with Taylor. He was introduced to a young man named Freddy Atkins, and took him to Paris, being joined there by a gentleman whose name was written yesterday and passed to counsel. Atkins was addressed as Freddy, and was plaintiff’s guest. He gave Freddy money to go to the Moulin Rouge. They stayed at the same hotel, but no impropriety ever took place. Freddy suggested he should have his hair curled.
Further cross-examined, Mr Wilde denied driving one of these men to his own private room at the Savoy Hotel. He never paid visits to Parker at a house in Camera square. He did not know that certain men who were arrested in the Fitzroy square raid were connected with the Cleveland street scandal. The Fitzroy square arrest made no difference in his friendship with Taylor. He was introduced to a young man named Freddy Atkins and took him to Paris, being joined there by a gentleman whose name was written yesterday and passed to counsel. Atkins was addressed as "Freddy," and was plaintiff’s guest. He gave Freddy money to go to the Moulin Rouge. They stayed at the same hotel. Freddy suggested he should have his hair curled.
Further cross-examined, Mr. Wilde denied driving with one of these men to the Savoy Hotel. He never saw Parker at a house in Camera Square. He did not know that certain men who were arrested in the Fitzroy Square raid were connected with the Cleveland Street scandals. The Fitzroy Square arrest made no difference in his friendship with Taylor. He was introduced to a young man named Freddy Atkins, and took him to Paris, being joined there by a gentleman whose name was written yesterday, and passed to counsel. Atkins was addressed as Freddy, and was plaintiff’s guest. He gave Freddy money to go to the Moulin Rouge. They stayed at the same hotel, but no unseemly conduct ever took place. Freddy suggested he should have his hair curled.
Counsel—Did he have it curled?
Witness—No; I should have been very angry if he had (laughter). The gentleman whose name had been written also introduced him to two young men named Scarp and Mabor. The latter met him on his return from Scotland in October, and they stayed at the same hotel in town. He gave Mabor a cigarette case at the rooms occupied by Lord Alfred Douglas in High street, Oxford. He met a youth named Granger, a servant, but denied counsel’s suggestion with regard to him (Granger) was ugly.
Witness—No, I should have been very angry if he had (laughter). The gentleman (whose name had been written) also introduced him to two young men named Scarp and Mabor. The latter met him on his return from Scotland in October, and they stayed at the same hotel in town. He gave Mabor a cigarette case. At the rooms occupied by Lord Alfred Douglas, in High-street, Oxford, he met a youth named Granger, a servant, but denied counsel’s suggestions with regard to him, Granger was ugly.
Witness—No; I should have been very angry if he had. (Laughter.) The gentleman whose name had been written also introduced him to two young men named Scarp and Mabor. The latter met him on his return from Scotland in October, and they stayed at the same hotel in town. He gave Mabor a cigarette case at the rooms occupied by Lord Alfred Douglas. Further examined—he knew a masseur at the Savoy Hotel, but denied that the masseur made any unusual discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to a visit on one occasion to Paris.
Counsel—Why do you give that as a reason?
Plaintiff—Because you stung me with an insolent question.
Further cross-examined—He knew a masseur at the Savoy Hotel, but denied that the mas- made any incriminating discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to misconduct on certain occasions in Paris.
Further cross-examined--He knew a masseur at the Savoy hotel, but denied that the masseur made any incriminating discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to misconduct on certain occasions in Paris.
Further cross-examined--He knew a masseur at the Savoy hotel, but denied that the masseur made any incriminating discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to misconduct on certain occasions in Paris.
Further cross-examined—He knew a masseur at the Savoy hotel, but denied that the masseur made any incriminating discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to misconduct on certain occasions in Paris.
Further cross-examined, he said he knew a masseur at the Savoy Hotel, but denied that the masseur made any incriminating discovery. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to certain occasions in Paris.