Oscar Wilde.

Manawatu Herald, 28 May 1895, Page 2

Oscar Wilde.

The trial of Oscar Wilde' isf con* The summing up ot*the*s|^§||gs? • cupied three hoars, an£.;th§ jurf were absent two hours l ih ..consider* iug their- verdict. ' ■.'■ $ kbjPiQ At the end of that tiiije. thfey re* turned with, a verdict of , gritty on all counts, '. < .-;i&>y-. His Honor, in seni§nclag in'e prisoners Wilde and Tayi.or/ spoke with great emotion. He said 1 that to his mitid theveKlijiii'waa t^orrect one beyond ull- shadow of demit, and it appeared to him useless to addresi tho - pdsonere, who W£t®jmltMy dead to all sense of ahaine. The case was the wocekoOts fclpiUji^ad ever had before hiinj, and in pa's'sing the most severe' s&it&iace tbje law permitted, he regretted that It was totally inadequate to fcfee dastii^y nature of the offence. He then sentenced e\ch of the prisoner's to two years' hard labour. Taylor left the dock wjtjh; 'tfifyn step, but Wilde appearea^ba.'lgard and dazed. In his despair he weakly uttered 4 request to b.j permitted to address the Court, but this was Unheeded, and the warders humed hihi' offto his cell. . ;h During the trial Wilde, Wh6*appeared to be suffering fronT;'^eafeness, was allowed to be seated fn^iiie witness-box while giving evideM<j&dn his own behalf. . -He said he always eustanMfti Taylor to be a fespw^fcf&JSai^and, referring to his association with him, said the reason for the friWjdsifp was because he personally '^ifeid praise, and lionising was delijjhtlal to him. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.0., oouttSel for the accused, declared thai the witnesses for the psos^u^ogj^^re blackmailers, and that it was impossible to believe them* * « •;. The jury asked whether it was intended to-arieie 1 J49«lLslfi;# "Douglas. . . ■••..■ <„,..<*:;,) The Judge replied- that he wfs'not aware of the intention, qf the "police, but it aid not affecfc l the/^»#t 1 tvinl. ■' • ": *%.#& *i4

The jnry thought that if Wilde's letter showed him to be guilty, the guilt applied equally to Lord Alfred Douglas. His Honor concurred in this opinion, but added that the suspicion of the jury that the son of the Marquis of Queensbury was being allowed to escape owing to his connoctions was both unfounded and impossible.