The Standard Union - Thursday, April 4, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
WILDE'S TRIAL.
He Makes Damaging Admissions
on Cross Examination.
THE PROSECUTION IS CLOSED.
LETTERS FROM THE MARQUIS OF
QUEENSBERRY READ REVILING
LORD ROSEBERY, MR. GLAD-
STONE AND QUEEN VICTORIA -
ONE LONDON
NEWSPAPER DE-
CLINES TO REPORT THE CASE.
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.
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, 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 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 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 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. - 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. 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 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.
Mr. Wilde, in answer to Mr. Carson's questions, made many admissions, but most of the testimony is utterly unfit for publication.
It was noticed that during Mr. Carson's questioning several names were written upon slips of paper and handed up to the court. These names were not made public.
It was noticed that during Mr. Carson’s questioning several names were written upon slips of paper and handed up to the court. These names were not made public.
This ended the cross-examination. It was noticed that during Mr. Carson's questioning several names were written on slips of paper and handed up to the court. These names were not made public.
This ended the cross examination. It was noticed that during Mr. Carson’s questioning several names were written on slips of paper and handed up to the Court. Those names were not made public.
Mr. Carson's questions to Wilde were in the main pitiless and unprintable. It was noticed that during Mr. Carson's questioning several names were written upon slips of paper and handed up to the court. These names were not made public.
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
In direct examination letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry were read. In them the marquis condemned his son for his conduct with Wilde and reviled Rosebery, Gladstone and the Queen for the appointment of his son to the peerage of Drumlanrig. In one letter the marquis declared Lord Douglas was not his own son.
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 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 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 direct examination the case for 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 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.
Mr. Carson, in opening the case for the defense, declared that all that the Marquis of Queensberry had done and said, he stood by, withdrawing nothing. His sole object in all the steps he had taken was to save his son from the influence of Wilde.
Mr. Carson, in opening the case for the defense, declared that all that the Marquis of Queensberry had done and said he stood by, withdrawing nothing. His sole object in all the steps he had taken was to save his son from the influence of Wilde.
Mr. Carson, in opening the case for the defence, declared that all that the Marquis of Queensberry had done and said he stood by, withdrawing nothing. His sole object in all the steps he had taken was to save his son from the influence of Wilde.
Mr. Carson, in opening the case for the defence, declared that all that the Marquis of Queensberry had done and said he stood by, withdrawing nothing. His sole object in all the steps he had taken was to save his son from the influence of Wilde, who, according to his own admissions, was a friend of a person who was known to be a procurer of boys for vicious purposes.
Mr. Carson, in opening the case for the defense, declared that the marquis of Queensbury had done and said he stood by, withdrawing nothing. His sole object in all the steps he had taken was to save his son from the influence of Wilde, who, according to his own admissions, was a friend of a person who was known to be a procurer of boys for vicious purposes.
At the conclusion of Mr. Carson’s speech the court adjourned.
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.
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.
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 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'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.
Document matches