The New York Times - Saturday, May 25, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
In Defense of Oscar Wilde.
It is Coherent Testimony Against That of a Horde of Blackmailers.
LONDON, May 24. -- Upon the resumption of the trial of Oscar Wilde in the Old Bailey Court to-day, Sir Frank Lockwood, Solicitor General, made application to the Judge for the reinstatement in the case of the evidence in regard to Shelley which the court eliminated from the case yesterday. The court refused to grant the application.
LONDON, May 24.– Upon the resumption of the trial of Oscar Wilde in the Old Bailey Court to-day Sir Frank Lockwood, Solicitor General, made application to the Judge for the reinstatement in the case of the evidence in regard to Shelley, which the Court eliminated from the case yesterday. The Court refused to grant the application.
LONDON, May 24 - Upon the resumption of the trial of Oscar Wilde in the old bailey court, today, Sir Frank Lockwood, solicitor general, made application to the judge for the reinstatement in the case of the evidence in regard to Shelley, which the court eliminated from the case yesterday. The court refused to grant the application.
LONDON, May 24. - Upon the resumption of the trial of Oscar Wilde in the Old Bailey Court to-day, Sir Frank Lockwood, Solicitor-General, made application to the judge for the reinstatement in the case of the evidence in regard to Shelley, which the Court eliminated from the case yesterday. The Court refused to grant the application.
London, May 24. - Upon the resumption of the trial of Oscar Wilde in the Old Bailey Court to-day, Sir Frank Lockwood, Solicitor-General, made application to the Judge for the reinstatement in the case of the evidence in regard to Shelly, which the court eliminated from the case yesterday. The Court refused to grant the application.
London, May 24.—Upon the resumption of the trial of Oscar Wilde in the Old Bailey Court to-day Sir Frank Lockwood, solicitor general, made application to the judge for the reinstatement in the case of evidence in regard to Shelley which the court eliminated from the case yesterday. The court refused to grant the application.
LONDON, May 24, 1896. Upon the resumption of the trial of Oscar Wilde, in the Old Bailey Court to-day. Sir Frank Lockwood, Solicitor General, made application to the Judge for therein statement in the case of the evidence in regard to Shelley, which the Court eliminates from the case yesterday. The Court refused to grant the application.
Upon the resumption of the trial of Oscar Wilde in the old bailey court, today, Sir Frank Lockwood, solicitor general, made application to the judge for the reinstatement in the case of the evidence in regard to Shelley, which the court eliminated from the case yesterday. The court refused to grant the application.
Sir Edward Clarke then opened the case for the defense. He complained o f the unjust manner in which the prosecution of the case had been conducted, and declared that because of this the defendant could answer to only a remnant of the charges.
Sir Edward Clarke then opened the case for the defense. He complained of the unjust manner in which the prosecution of the case had been conducted, and declared that, because of this, the defendant could answer to only a remnant of the charges.
Sir Edward Clarke then opened the case for the defense. He complained of the unjust manner in which the prosecution of the case had been conducted, and declared that, because of this, the defendant could answer to only a remnant of the charges.
Sir Edward Clarke then opened the case for the defence. He complained of the unjust manner in which the prosecution of the case had been conducted, and declared that because of this the defendant could answer to only a remnant of the charges.
Sir Edward Clarke then opened the case for the defence. He complained of the unjust manner in which the prosecution of the case had been conducted, and declared that because of this the defendant could answer to only a remnant of the charges.
Sir Edward Clarke then opened the case for the defence. He complained of the unjust manner in which the prosecution of the case had been conducted and declared that because of this the defendant could answer to only a remnant of the charges.
Sir Edward Clarke then opened the case for the defencs. He complained of the unjust manner in which the prosecution of the case had been conducted, and declared that because of this the defendant could answer to only a remnant of the charges.
Wilde was then called to the stand, and repeated the testimony he gave in the previous trial. Wilde was physically weak and was allowed to sit while testifying.
Wilde was then called to the stand and repeated the testimony he gave in the previous trial. Wilde was physically weak and was allowed to sit while testifying.
Wilde was then called to the stand and repeated the testimony he gave in the previous trial. He was physically weak and was allowed to sit while testifying.
Wilde was then called to the stand and repeated the testimony he gave in the previous trial. He was physically weak and was allowed to sit while testifying.
Wilde was then called to the stand and repeated the testimony he gave in the previous trial. He was physically weak and was allowed to sit while testifying.
Wilde's testimony brought out nothing new. Sir F. Lockwood, throughout his cross-examination, carefully avoided giving the defendant any opening for a literary Speech.
Wilde’s testimony brought out nothing new. Sir F. Lockwood throughout his cross-examination carefully avoided giving the defendant any opening for a literary speech.
Wilde's testimony brought out nothing new. Sir F. Lockwood, throughout his cross-examination, carefully avoided giving the defendant any opening for a literary speech.
Wilde's testimony brought out nothing new. Sir F. Lockwood, throughout his cross-examination, carefully avoided giving the defendant any opening for a literary speech.
Wilde's testimony brought out nothing knew. Sir F. Lockwood, throughout his cross-examination, carefully avoided giving the defendant any opening for a literary speech.
Wilde’s testimony brought out nothing new. Sir F. Lockwood, throughout his cross-examination, carefully avoided giving the defendant any opening for a literary speech. Wilde repeatedly denied that he had been guilty of any misconduct.
Sir Edward Clarke, in his speech to the Jury on behalf of Wilde, maintained that the coherent account which Wilde had given entitled his word to be accepted in preference to the allegations of a horde of blackmailers who had long been the pests of London.
Sir Edward Clarke, in his speech to the jury on behalf of Wilde, maintained that the coherent account which Wilde had given of his relations with Taylor and others, entitled his word to be accepted in preference to the allegations of a horde of blackmailers who had long been the pests of London.
Sir Edward Clarke, in his speech to the jury on behalf of Wilde, maintained that the celebrated account which Wilde had given of his relations with Taylor and others entitled his word to be accepted in preference to the allegations of a horde of blackmailers who had long been the pests of London.
Sir Francis Lockwood was addressing the jury when the court adjourned.
Sir Francis Lockwood was addressing the jury when the court adjourned.
Sir Francis Lockwood was addressing the jury when the court adjourned.
Sir Francis Lockwood was addressing the jury when the court adjourned.
Sir Francis Lockwood was addressing the jury when the court adjourned.
PARIS. May 24.--The Figaro publishes a telegram from Lord Alfred Douglas, son of the Marquis of Queensberry, demanding an apology from the paper for having alleged in its columns that he was concerned in the Piccadilly fight with the Marquis of Queensberry.
PARIS, May 24. The Figaro publishes a telegram from Lord Alfred Douglas, a son of the Marquis of Queensberry, demanding an apology from the paper for having alleged in its columns that he was concerned in the Picadilly fracas with the Marquis of Queensberry.
Paris, May 24.- The Figaro publishes a telegram from Lord Alfred Douglas, son of the Marquis of Queensberry, demanding an apology from the paper for having alleged in its columns that he was concerned in the Piccadilly fracas with the Marquis of Queensberry. The telegram, which is dated at Rouen, adds that Lord Alfred regrets that it was his brother and not himself who corrected his father on that occasion.
Paris, May 24.- The Figaro publishes a telegram from Lord Alfred Douglas, son of the Marquis of Queensberry, demanding an apology from the paper for having alleged in its columns that he was concerned in the Piccadilly fracas with the Marquis of Queensberry. The telegram, which is dated at Rouen, adds that Lord Alfred regrets that it was his brother and not himself who corrected his father on that occasion.
Paris, May 24. -- The Figaro publishes a telegram from Lord Alfred Douglass, son of the Marquis of Queensberry, demanding an apology from the paper for having alleged in its columns that he was concerned in the Piccadilly fracas with the Marquis of Queensberry. The telegram, which is dated at Rouen, adds that Lord Alfred greatly regrets that it was his brother and not himself who corrected his father on that occasion.
The telegram, which is dated at Rouen, adds that it was his brother and not himself who corrected his father on that occasion.
The telegram, which is dated at Rouen, adds that Lord Alfred greatly regrets that it was his brother and not himself who corrected his father on that occasion.