Wairarapa Daily Times - Thursday, May 23, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
LATEST CABLE NEWS
Press Association—Electric Telegraph—Copyright
PAINFUL STREET QUARREL
THE MARQUIS OF
QUEENSBERRY THRASHES HIS SON.
London, May 22.
The Marquis of Queensberry severely chastised his son.
Both were arrested and subsequently admitted to bail.
Received May 23, 1.10 a.m.
London, May 22.
Lord Alfred Douglas began the quarrel by calling the Marquis of Queensberry a liar and a slanderer.
Lord Alfred Douglas began the quarrel by calling the Marquis of Queensberry a liar and a slanderer.
Sir Alfred Douglas began the quarrel by calling the Marquis of Queensberry a liar and a slanderer.
Sir Alfred Douglas began the quarrel by calling the Marquis of Queensberry a liar and a slander.
Sir Alfred Douglas began the quarrel by calling the Marquis of Queensberry a liar and slanderer.
Lord Alfred began the quarrel by calling the Marquis of Queensberry a liar and a slanderer.
Douglas began the quarrel by calling the Marquis of Queensberry a liar and a slanderer.
The latter eventually knocked his son down, and a furious struggle resulted until the police interfered and separated the pair.
The latter eventually knocked his son down, and a furious struggle resulted until the police interfered and separated the pair.
The latter eventually knocked his son down; a furious struggle resulted until the police interfered and separated the pair.
The Marquis eventually knocked his son down, and a furious struggle resulted until the police interfered and separated the pair.
A furious struggle resulted, until the police interfered and separated the pair.
Received, May 23, 10.40 a.m.
London, May 22.
It is not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Howich, with whom the quarrel occurred. He accused his father of sending an insulting letter to Lady Douglas, because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for ten thousand pounds, and addressing the crowd, said he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of five hundred each, to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for ten thousand pounds, and addressing the crowd said he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of five hundred each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas, because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000, and addressing the crowd said he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of £500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000, and, addressing the crowd, said he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of £500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas but Lord Douglas of Hawick with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas, because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry shouted that he was anxious to renew the fight for £10 000, and addressing the crowd said he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of £500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas but Lord Douglas, of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000, and addressing the crowd said he disowned his son. Both were bound over in two sureties of £500 to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas but Lord Douglas of Howick with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's securities. The Marquis of Queensberry shouted out he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000 and addressing the crowd said he disowned his son. Both were bound over in securities of £500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. He accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. Lord Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000, and addressing he crowd said that he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of £500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas, of Howick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's securities. The Marquis of Queensberry shouted—"He was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000, and, addressing the crowd, said he disowned his son." Both were bound over in sureties of £500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. He accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's securities. Lord Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000, and addressing the crowd said that he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of £500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry cried out that he was anxious to renew the fight for L10,000, and, addressing the crowd, said he disowned his son. Both defendants were bound over in sureties of L500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry cried out that he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000, and, addressing the crowd, said he disowned his son. Both defendants were bound over in sureties of £500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas, of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry cried out that he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000, and, addressing the crowd, said he disowned his son. Both defendants were bound over in sureties of £500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for L10,000 and addressing the crowd said that he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of L500 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for L10,000, and addressing the crowd said that he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of L5000 each to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry cried out that he was anxious to renew the fight for L10,000, and, addressing the crowd, said he disowned his son. Both defendants were bound over in sureties of L500 to keep the peace.
It was not Lord Alfred Douglas, but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000, and addressing the crowd said he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of £500 each to keep the peace. Wilde's trial is now proceeding.
It was not Lord Douglas of Hawick with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas, because he was one of Wilde's sureties. The Marquis of Queensberry shouted out that he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000, and addressing the crowd, said that he disowned his son. Both were bound over in sureties of £500 each to keep the peace.
May 22.—It was not Lord Alfred Douglas but Lord Douglas of Hawick, with whom the quarrel occurred. The latter accused his father of sending insulting letters to Lady Douglas because he was one of Wilde's sureties. Lord Queensberry shouted out he was anxious to renew the fight for £10,000. Addressing the crowd he said he disowned his son.
Wilde's trial is now proceeding.
- The Ashburton Guardian - Thursday, May 23, 1895 - 71.6%
Compare - Marlborough Express - Thursday, May 23, 1895 - 71.6%
Compare - Hawera & Normanby Star - Thursday, May 23, 1895 - 71.2%
Compare - The Poverty Bay Herald - Thursday, May 23, 1895 - 66.5%
Compare - The Thames Star - Thursday, May 23, 1895 - 65.9%
Compare - Fielding Star - Thursday, May 23, 1895 - 63.5%
Compare - West Coast Times - Saturday, May 25, 1895 - 61.4%
Compare - The Star - Thursday, May 23, 1895 - 60.5%
Compare - Wanganui Herald - Thursday, May 23, 1895 - 60.5%
Compare