The Irish News and Belfast Morning News - Thursday, April 4, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
OSCAR WILDE’S LIBEL ACTION.
PROSECUTION OF THE MARQUIS OF QUEENSBERRY.
LONDON, WEDNESDAY.
The Marquis of Queensberry surrendered to his bail to-day at the Central Criminal Court, indicted for
publishing a defamatory libel on Oscar Wilde, by addressing to him a card at the Albemarle Club. There was a crowded attendance of the public. On taking
his place in the dock Lord Queensberry answered the indictment by pleading first "not guilty," and, secondly, that the libel was true, and was published
for the public benefit.
London, Wednesday. The Marquis of Queensberry surrendered to his bail to-day at the Central Criminal Court, indicted for publishing a defamatory libel on Mr Oscar Wilde by addressing to him a card at the Albemarle Club. There was a crowded attendance of the public. On taking his place in the dock, Lord Queensberry answered the indictment by pleading, first, not guilty, and, secondly, that the libel was true, and was published for the public benefit.
London, Wednesday.The Marquis of Queensbery surrendered to his bail to-day at the Central Criminal Court, indicted for publishing a defamatory libel on Oscar Wilde, by addressing to him a postcard at the Albemarle Club. There was a crowded attendance of the public. On taking his place in the dock, Lord Queensbery answered the indictment by pleading, first, not guilty; and, secondly, that the libel was true, and was published for the public benefit.
The Marquis of Queensbery surrendered to his bail to-day at the Central Criminal Court, indicted for publishing a defamatory libel on Oscar Wilde, by addressing to him a postcard at the Albemarle Club. There was a crowded attendance of the public. On taking his place in the dock, Lord Queensbery answered the indictment by pleading, first, not guilty; and, secondly, that the libel was true, and was published for the public benefit.
Sir E CLARKE, in opening for the prosecution, said very grave issues had been raised because the defendant, in his pleadings, alleged that the plaintiff had for some time solicited persons named to commit indecent offences. Certain letters addressed by the plaintiff to Lord A. Douglas were brought to him by a man who said he was in distress, and Mr. Wilde gave him £15 or £20 to pay his passage to America. Another letter came to plaintiff, through Mr. Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentleman, who, in turn, gave it to plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant terms, but it did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queensberry’s actions, the learned counsel said the jury might have doubts whether the defendant was responsible for his actions.
Sir E Clarke, in opening for the prosecution, said that a very grave issue had been raised, because the defendant, in the pleadings, alleged that the plaintiff had for some time solicited persons named to commit indecent offenses. Certain letters addressed by the plaintiff to Lord A Douglas were brought to him by a man who said he was in distress, and Mr Wilde gave him £15 or £20 to pay his passage to America. Another letter came to plaintiff through Mr Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentleman, who in turn gave it to plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant terms, but it did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queensberry’s action, the learned counsel said the jury might have doubts whether defendant was responsible for his actions.
Sir E. Clarke, in opening for the prosecution, said very grave issues had been raised, because the defendant in the pleadings alleged that plaintiff had for some time solicited persons named to commit indecent offences. Certain letters addressed by the plaintiff to Lord A. Douglas were brought to him by a man who said he was in distress, and Mr Wilde gave him £15 or £20 to pay his passage to America. Another letter came to the plaintiff through Mr Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentleman, who in turn gave it to the plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant term, but it did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queensbery's action the learned counsel said the jury might have doubts whether the defendant was responsible for his actions.
Sir E Clarke, in opening for the prosecution, said very grave issues had been raised because the defendant in the pleadings alleged that the plaintiff had for some time solicited persons named to commit indecent offences. Certain letters addressed by plaintiff to Lord A Douglas were brought to him by a man who said he was in distress, and Mr Wilde gave him £15 or £20 to pay his passage to America. Another letter came to plaintiff through Mr Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentleman; who in turn gave it to plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant terms, but did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queensbery’s action, the learned counsel said the jury might have doubts as to whether the defendant was responsible for his actions.
Sir E Clarke, in opening for the prosecution, said very grave issues had been raised because the defendant in the pleadings alleged that the plaintiff had for some time solicited persons named to commit indecent offences. Certain letters addressed by plaintiff to Lord A Douglas were brought to him by a man who said he was in distress, and Mr Wilde gave him £15 or £20 to pay his passage to America. Another letter came to plaintiff through Mr Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentleman, who in turn gave it to plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant terms, but did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queensbery's action, the learned counsel said the jury might have doubts as to whether the defendant was responsible for his actions.
Sir E. Clarke, in opening for the prosecution, said very grave issues had been raised, because the defendant in the pleadings alleged that plaintiff had for some time solicited persons named to commit indecent offences. Certain letters addressed by the plaintiff to Lord A. Douglas were brought to him by a man who said he was in distress, and Mr Wilde gave him £15 or £20 to pay his passage to America. Another letter came to the plaintiff through Mr. Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentleman, who in turn gave it to the plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant terms, but it did not bear the suggestion made in the case. Coming to Lord Queensberry's action the learned counsel said the jury might have doubts whether the defendant was responsible for his actionss.
Sir E. Clarke, in opening for the prosecution, said very grave issues had been raised, because the defendant in the pleadings alleged that plaintiff had for some time solicited persons named to commit indecent offences. Certain letters addressed by the plaintiff to Lord A. Douglas were brought to him by a man who said he was in distress, and Mr Wilde gave him £15 or £20 to pay his passage to America. Another letter came to the plaintiff through Mr Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentlemen who in turn gave it to the plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant germs, but it did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queenberry's action the learned counsel said the jury might have doubts whether the defendant was responsible for his actions.
Sir E Clarke, in opening the case for the prosecution, said very grave issues had been raised because the defendant in the pleadings alleged that the plaintiff had for some time solicited persons named to commit certain offences. Some letters addressed by the plaintiff to Lord A. Douglas were brought to him by a man who said he was in distress, and Mr Wilde gave him £15 or £20 to pay his passage to America. Another letter came to the plaintiff through Mr Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentleman, who, in turn, gave it to the plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant terms, but it did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queensberry's action, the learned counsel said the jury might have doubts whether the defendant was responsible for his actions.
The plaintiff was examined by Sir EDWARD CLARKE at length on the subject of letters which he did not regard as important. He described a stormy interview in his own house with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offence. He told defendant he did not know what the Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rule was to shoot at sight. In ordering the defendant out of the house, he described him as the most infamous brute in London. There was no foundation for the suggestions in the pleadings.
Plaintiff was examined by Sir Edward Clarke at length on the subject of the letters, which he said he did not regard as important. He described a stormy interview in his own house with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offence. He told the defendant he did not know what the Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rule was to shoot at sight. In ordering the defendant out of the house he described him as "the most infamous brute in London." There was no foundation for the suggestions in the pleadings.
Plaintiff was examined by Sir Edward Clarke at length on the subject of the letters, which he said he did not regard as important. He described a stormy interview in his own house with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offence. He told the defendant he did not know what the Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rule was to shoot at sight. In ordering the defendant out of the house he described him as "the most infamous bruts in London." There was no foundation for the suggestions in his pleadings.
Plaintiff was examined by Sir Edward Clarke at length on the subject of the letters, which he said he did not regard as important. He described a stormy interview in his own home with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offense. He told the defendant he did not know what the Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rule was to shoot at sight. In ordering the defendant out of the house he described him as "the most infamous brute in London." There was no foundation for the suggestion in the pleadings.
Plaintiff was examined by Sir Edward Clarke at length on the subject of the letters, which, he said, he did not regard as impartial. He described a stormy interview in his own house with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offence. He told defendant he did not know what the Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rule was to shoot at sight. In ordering defendant out of the house he described him as the most infamous brute in London. There was no foundation for the suggestions in the pleadings.
The plaintiff was examined by Sir Edward Clarke at length on the subject of the letters, which he said he did not regard as important. He described a stormy interview in his own house with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offence. He told the defendant he did not know what the Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rule was to shoot at sight. In ordering the defendant out of the house he described him as a most infamous brute. There was no foundation for the suggestions in the pleadings.
Mr Wilde was examined by Sir Edward Clarke at length on the subject of the letters which he said he did not regard as important. He described a stormy interview in his own house with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offence. He told the defendant he did not know what the Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rule was to shoot at sight. In ordering the defendant out of the house he described him as the most infamous brute in London. There was no foundation for suggestions in the pleadings.
Plaintiff was examined by Sir Edward Clarke at length on the subject of letters which he said he did not regard as important. He described a stormy interview in his own house with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offence. He told defendants he did not know what the Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rules was to shoot at sight. He described him as the most infamous brute in London. There was no foundation for the suggestions in the pleadings.
Mr. CARSON cross-examined as to the teaching in "Dorian Gray" and "Phrases and Philosophies." The plaintiff replied that he looked at these matters from the point of view of art. The "Priest and Acolyte" was twaddle, but he had not disassociated himself from the "Cameleon," in which it appeared the man Wood was an unemployed clerk. Plaintiff said in further cross-examination he not only gave him £15 for his passage to America, but £5 more on the occasion of a champagne lunch before his departure. He denied misconducting himself with Wood. Lord A. Douglas had asked him to befriend the man when introducing him. Wood and plaintiff knew each other by their Christian names. A man named Allen also called on him with reference to the Douglas letters. He knew Allen as a blackmailer, and gave him 10s to show his contempt. (Laughter.) After Allen came another person named Clyburne, and he was kind to Clyburne by giving him the same amount. To a bookseller’s assistant he had given money on three occasions, but denied misconduct.
Mr Carson cross-examined as to the teaching in "Dorien Gray" and "Phrases and Philosophies." The plaintiff replied that he looked at these matters from the point of view of art. "The Priest and Acolyte" was twaddle, but he had not dissociated himself from the "Chameleon," in which it appeared. The man Wood was an unemployed clerk, the plaintiff said in further cross-examinations, and he not only gave him £15 for his passage to America, but £5 more on the occasion of a champagne lunch before his departure. He denied misconduct with Wood. Lord A. Douglas had asked him to befriend the man when introducing him. Wood and plaintiff knew each other by their Christian names. A man named Allen also called on him with reference to the Douglas letters. He knew Allen as a blackmailer, and gave him 10s to show his contempt (laughter). After Allen came another person named Clyburne, and he was kind to Clyburne by giving him the same amount. To a bookseller's assistant he had given money on three occasions, but denied misconduct.
Mr Carson cross-examined as to the teaching in "Dorien Gray and "Phrases and Philosophies." The plaitiff replied that he looked at these matters from the point of view of art. "The Priest and Acolyte" was twaddle, but he had not dissociated himself from the "Chameleon," in which it appeared. The man Wood was an unemployed clerk, the plaintiff said in further cross-examination, and he not only gave him £15 for his passage to America, but £5 more on the occasion of a champagne lunch before his departure. He denied misconduct with Wood. Lord A. Douglas had asked him to befriend the man when introducing him. Wood and plaintiff knew each other by their Christian names, A man named Allen also called on him with reference to the Douglas letters. He knew Allen as a blackmailer, and gave him 10s to show his contempt (laughter). After Allen came another person named Clyburne, and he was kind to Clyburne by giving him the same amount. To a bookseller's assistant he had given money on three occasions, but denied misconduct.
Mr Carson cross-examined as to the teaching in "Dorien Gray" and "Phranes and Philosophies." The plaintiff replied that he looked at there matters from the point of view of art. "The Priest and the Acolyte" was twaddle, but he had not dissociated himself from the "Chameleon," in which it appeared. The man Wood was an unemployed clerk, the plaintiff said in further cross-examination, and he not only gave him £15 for his passage to American, but £5 more on the occasion of a champagne lunch before his departure. He denied misconduct with Wood. Lord A. Douglas had asked him to befriend the man when introducing him. Wood and plaintiff knew each other by their Christian names. A man named Allen also called on him with reference to the Douglas letters. He knew Allen as a blackmailer, and gave him 10s to show his contempt (laughter). After Allen came another person named Clyburne, and he was kind to Clyburne by giving him the same amount. To a bookseller's assistant he had given money on three occasions, but denied misconduct.
Mr Carson cross-examined him as to the teaching in Dorian Gray and Phrases and Philosophies, and the plaintiff replied that he looked at these matters from a point of view of art; the Priest and Acolyte was twaddle, but he had not dissociated himself from Camelion, in which it appeared The man Wood was an unemployed clerk, plaintiff said in further cross-examination, and he not only gave him £15 for his passage to America, but £5 more on the occasion of a champagne lunch before his departure. He denied any misconduct as regards Wood. Lord A Douglas had asked him to befriend the man when introducing him. Wood and plaintiff knew each other by their Christian names. A man named Allen also called on him with reference to the Douglas letters. He knew Allen as a blackmailer, and gave him 10s to show his contempt (laughter). After Allen came another person, named Clyburne, and he was kind to Clyburne by giving him the same amount. To a bookseller’s assistant he had given money on three occasions, but he denied misconduct.
Mr Carson cross-examined as to the teaching in "Dorian Gray," and "Phrases and Philosophies." Plaintiff replied that he looked at these matters from the point of view of art. The "Priest and Acolyte" was twaddle ; but he had not dissociated himself from Cameleon," in which it appeared. The man, Wood, was an unemployed clerk. Plaintiff said, in further cross-examination, that he not only gave him £15 for his passage to America, but £5 more on the occasion of a champagne lunch before his departure. He denied misconducting himself with Wood. Lord A Douglas had asked him to befriend the man when introducing him. Wood and plaintiff knew each other by their Christian names. Proceeding.
The Court adjourned.
- The Cork Examiner - Thursday, April 4, 1895 - 94.9%
Compare - Bristol Mercury - Thursday, April 4, 1895 - 90.2%
Compare - The Freeman’s Journal - Thursday, April 4, 1895 - 85.9%
Compare - Evening Herald - Wednesday, April 3, 1895 - 83.7%
Compare - Dublin Daily Express - Thursday, April 4, 1895 - 76.2%
Compare - Dublin Evening Telegraph - Wednesday, April 3, 1895 - 70.5%
Compare