The Irish News and Belfast Morning News - Thursday, May 2, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
THE OSCAR WILDE CASE.
THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.
LONDON, WEDNESDAY.
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day on the several
indictments preferred against them.
London, Wednesday.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 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.
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock, at the Central Criminal Court this morning, on the several indictments preferred against them. There was a crowded attendance of the public.
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court this morning, on the several indictments preferred against them. There was a crowded attendance of the public.
Mr. Justice CHARLES began his summing up to the jury by remarking that the prosecuting counsel of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guilty. It was a rule of law that uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the sense in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins, and Wood had been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices, the jury, in considering the details of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on the Wilde v. Queensberry case, and passing to the literary part of the case said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unavoidable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorian Grey." In the last century noble minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for "The Priest and Acolyte," the work of another. He called particular attention to Wilde’s answer given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgment. The learned judge next approached the consideration of the charges in the order of their date. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. His Lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimlico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy Hotel evidence was a most anxious part of the inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the character of the Crown witnesses. After a reference to the part played by Wood in the matter of the Douglas and Wilde letters, his Lordship reviewed the evidence against Taylor. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence. The jury retired to consider their verdict at 1.25. At 5.15 the jury returned into court and informed his Lordship that they could not agree upon certain of the questions submitted to them. Replying to questions later, the foreman said there was no possibility of an agreement. Upon the count of conspiracy his Lordship had early in the day directed a verdict of not guilty, and a formal finding was now arrived at, but the Judge observed that all the material questions were unhappily undecided. He discharged the jury, and refused to bail Wilde and Taylor, and informed Sir E. Clarke that an application must be made in Chambers.
Mr Justice Charles began his summing up to the jury by remarking that the prosecuting counsel had acted wisely in withdrawing the charge of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guilty. It was a rule of law that uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the sense in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins, and Wood had been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices. The jury, in considering the details of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on Wilde v Queensberry, and passing to the literary part of the case said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unfavourable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of Dorien Grey. In the last century the noble-minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for the Priest and Acolyte the work of another. He called particular attention to Wile's answers given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgment. The learned judge next approached the consideration of the charges in the order of their date. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. Long quotations were read by his lordship from Shelley's letters, in one of which the writer said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane." To deal with Shelley's evidence would be an interesting and responsible part of the jury's duty. There was proof of excitability, and Shelley had told a nauseous tale, but to talk of him as an insane man, would be to exaggerate the effect of the letters. His lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimlico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy Hotel evidence was a most anxious part of the inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the character of the Crown witnesses. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence.
Mr Justice Charles began his summing up to the jury by remarking that the prosecuting counsel had acted wisely in withdrawing the charge of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guilty. It was a rule of law that uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the sense in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins, and Wood had been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices. The jury, in considering the details of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on Wilde v Queensberry, and passing to the literary part of the case said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unfavourable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of Dorien Grey. In the last century the noble-minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for the Priest and Acolyte the work of another. He called particular attention to Wilde’s answers given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgment. The learned judge next approached the consideration of charges in the order of their date. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. Long quotations were read by his lordship from Shelley’s letters, in one of which the writer said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane." To deal with Shelley’s evidence would be an interesting and responsible part of a jury’s duty. There was proof of excitability, and Shelley had told a nauseous tale, but to talk of him as an insane man, would be to exaggerate the effect of the letters. His lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimlico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy Hotel evidence was a most anxious part of the inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the character of the Crown witnesses. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence.
Mr Justice Charles began his summing up to the jury by remarking that the prosecuting counsel had acted wisely in withdrawing the charge of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guilty. It was a rule of law that the uncorroborative testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in this case in the cease in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins, and Wood had been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices, the jury, in considering the details of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on Wilde v. Queensberry, and passing to the literary part of the case, said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unfavorable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorien Gray." In the last century noble minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for "The Priest and the Acolyte," the work of another. He called particular attention to Wilde's answers given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgement. The learned Judge next approached consideration of the charges in the order of their dates, Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. Long quotations were read by his Lordship from Shelley's letters, in one of which the writer said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane." To deal with Shelley's evidence would be an interesting and responsible part of the jury's duty. There was proof of excitability, and Shelley had told a nauseous tale, but to talk of him as an insane man would be to exaggerate the effect of the letters. His Lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimilico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy hotel incident was a most anxious part of inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the the character of the Crown witnesses. After a reference to the part played by Wood in the matter of the Douglas and Wilde letters, his Lordship reviewed the evidence against Taylor in respect of the alleged acts of indecency with Charles and William Parker. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence.
Justice Charles began his summing up on Wednesday by remarking that the prosecuting counsel had acted wisely in withdrawing the charge of conspiracy, and upon that part of the case he should direct a verdict of not guity. It was a rule of law that the uncorroborative testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witness in this case in the sense in which the law required it. Parker, Atkins and Wood has been properly described as blackmailers, and being also accomplices, the jury considering the detalls of their evidence, would have to weigh their character. His Lordship briefly commented on Wilde v. Queensberry, and passing to the literary part of the case, said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place an unfavourable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorien Gray." In the last century noble minded men penned volumes which it was painful for a modest person to peruse. Wilde could not be held responsible for "The Priest and the Acolyte," the work of another. He called particular attention to Wilde's answers given in cross-examination, in which he denied that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas breathed an unnatural passion. Upon this the jury would exercise their own judgment. The learned Judge next approached consideration of the charges in the order of their dates. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was sufficiently corroborated to entitle the jury to consider it. Long quotations were read by his Lordship from Shelley's letters, in one of which the writer said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane." To deal with Shelley' evidence would be an interesting and responsible part of the jury's duty. There was proof of excitability, and Shelley had told a nauseous tale, but to talk of him as an insane man would be to exaggerate the effect of the letters. His Lordship severely commented on the character of Frederick Atkins, whose impudent denial and subsequent admission of the facts in the Pimilico blackmailing incident had proved him to be untruthful and unscrupulous. The Savoy hotel incident was a most anxious part of the inquiry, and in regard to it he must observe that there was nothing against the character of the Crown witnesses. After a reference to the part played by Wood in the matter of the Douglas and Wilde letters, his Lordship reviewed the evidence against Taylor in respect of the alleged acts of indecency with Charles and William Parker. The inquiry, said his Lordship in conclusion, was of great importance to the public, and he committed the questions to the jury with perfect confidence.