Times Union - Thursday, April 4, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
WILDE -- A GOOD THING.
So His Testimony To-day Would
Seem to Indicate.
GAVE AWAY LOTS OF MONEY
JUST BECAUSE THE RECIPIENTS
HAPPENED TO BE POOR.
Much of the Testimony Adduced in Cross-
examination is Unfit for Publication -
Some Remarkable Letters From the
Marquis of Queensberry - The Develop-
ment of a Vile Scandal - Wilde Loses
His Temper.
The testimony adduced in the cross-examination of Oscar Wilde, in the Queensberry libel suit, to-day, is of such a nature as to preclude its publication in a reputable newspaper. The Times, therefore, must decline to print it. At one period this morning, while being cross-questioned by Mr. Carson, the marquis of Queensberry's lawyer, Wilde lost his temper and announced the "insolence" of Mr. Carson in pursuing the line of questioning he had followed. Mr. Carson, he said, had deliberately insulted him throughout the cross-examination.
Mr. Carson drew from the witness the acknowledgement that he had made presence of money or trinkets to a considerable number of persons. Wilde blandly explained that he did this "because they were poor."
It may be said that during his cross-examination, Wilde made a pretty good witness for the defense.
LONDON, April 4. - The St. James Gazette makes the announcement that owing to the nature of the testimony being taken in the Wilde-Queensberry libel suit the management of that paper has decided not to report the proceedings of the case any further.
London, April 4. - The "St. James’ Gazette" makes the announcement that, owing to the nature of the testimony being taken in the Wilde-Queensberry libel suit, the management of that paper have decided not to report the proceedings of the case any further.
The St. James Gazette makes the announcement that owing to the nature of the testimony being taken in the Wilde-Queensberry libel suit the management of that paper has decided not to report the proceedings of the case any further.
The St. James Gazette makes the announcement that owing to the nature of the testimony being taken in the Wilde-Queensberry libel suit the management of that paper have decided not to report the proceedings of the case any further.
The St. James Gazette makes the announcement that owing to the nature of the testimony being taken in the Wilde-Queensberry libel suit, the management of that paper have decided not to report the proceedings of the case any further.
The St. James's Gazette makes the announcement that, owing to the nature of the testimony being taken in the Wilde-Queensberry libel suit, the management of the paper have decided not to report further the proceedings of the case.
The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed to-day in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness box, Mr. Carson cross-examining.
The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed today in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness-box, Mr. Carson cross-examining.
London, Apr. 4. -- The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed today in the central criminal court, Old Bailey, with the complaintant again in the witness box, Mr. Carson cross-examining.
LONDON, April 4. - The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed today in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness box, Mr. Carson cross-examining.
LONDON, April 4 - The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed today in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness box, Mr. Carson cross-examining.
LONDON, April 4 - The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed today in the central criminal court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness box, Mr Carson cross-examining.
LONDON, April 4 - The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed today in the central criminal court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness box, Mr Carson cross-examining.
London, April 4.—The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed to-day in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness-box, Mr. Carson cross-examining.
LONDON, April 4.– The trial of the section of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel, was resumed to-day in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness box, Mr. Carson cross-examining.
LONDON. April 4. 1895. The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed to-day in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness box, Mr. Carson cross-examining.
London, April 4. - The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed to-day in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness-box, Mr. Carson cross-examining him.
LONDON, April 4.-- The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed to-day in the Central criminal court, Old Bailey, with the complainant in the witness box, Mr. Carson examining.
London. April 4.- The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis Of Queensberry for libel was resumed to-day in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant in the witness box, Mr. Carson examinning.
London. April 4. -- The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry for libel was resumed to-day in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness box.
London, April 4. -- The trial of the action of Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensbury for libel was resumed today in the central criminal court, Old Bailey, with the complainant again in the witness box.
At the conclusion of the cross-examination, Sir Edward Clarke questioned Mr. Wilde in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the marquis reviling Lord Roseberry, Mr. Gladstone and the queen, because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis revilling Lord Roseberry, Mr. Gladstone, and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in re-direct examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son. Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone, and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlaneig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke questioned the witness in re-direct examination . He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis, reviling Lord Roseberry, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen, because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the marquis of Queensbury to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas in which the marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the marquis reviling Lord Rosebury, Mr. Gladstone and the queen, because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Albert [sic] Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlaurig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in re-direct examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son. Lord Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Mr. Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis reviling Lord Roseberry, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the Peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke in re-direct examination began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensbery to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the marquis reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the marquis, reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone, and the Queen, because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters, the marquis declared that Lord Alfred Douglas was not his son.
Sir Edward Clarke then questioned the witness in direct examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alred Douglass, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter, written by the Marquis, reviling Lord Roseberry, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen, because of Drumlanrig. In one of the letters the Marquis declared that Lord Alref Douglass was not his son.
Sir Edward Clark then questioned the witness in redirect examination. He began by reading a number of letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the Marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde. He also read a letter written by the Marquis reviling Lord Rosebery, Mr. Gladstone and the Queen, because of the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s redirect examination the case of the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s redirect examination, the case of the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr Wilde’s redirect examination the case of the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr Wilde’s redirect examination the case of the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde's redirect examination the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s re-direct examination, the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde's redirect examination the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s re-direct examination, the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde's redirect examination the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s redirect examination the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde's direct examination the case for the prosecution was closed.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilde’s redirect examination the case for the prosecution closed.
At the conclusion of Wilde’s redirect examination, the prosecution closed.
London, April 4— At the conclusion of Wilde's re-direct examination the prosecution closed.