Editing 25 Apr 1895 - The Globe (London) (section)

==<center>APPLICATION FOR A POSTPONEMENT REFUSED</center>==
At the Central Criminal Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Charles, Mr. Charles Mathews, who, with Sir E. Clarke, will appear for the defence of Mr. Oscar Wilde, who is charged with a man named Alfred Taylor with offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, asked that the trial of Mr. Wilde might be postponed until the May Sessions. The application was made on the grounds set out in an affidavit, which he would hand to his Lordship, that had been sworn by Mr. Robert Humphreys, the solicitor for Mr. Wilde. He desired to place some dates before the court, in order to show that the defence had not had proper time to prepare their case. The libel case terminated at that court on Friday, April 5. On the same night Mr. Wilde was arrested and the next day he was brought before Sir John Bridge at Bow-street. He was remanded until April 11. There was a further remand until Friday last, April 19, when he was committed for trial. The full copy of the depositions was not obtained by Mr. Humphreys until Saturday, April 20. The bill was presented to the Grand Jury on Tuesday afternoon, and a true bill was then found. Under these circumstances, Mr. Wilde desired, through his solicitor, to say that he was not prepared with his defence. There was a further ground, set out in the affidavit, which was that in the present state of popular feeling, in his Mr. Humphreys' opinion, Mr. Wilde would not get a fair and impartial trial.

Mr. Grain (who defends Taylor) said that his client was desirous of having the charges against him brought to an issue as early as possible. Beyond this, he did not desire to say anything.

Mr. Gill, for the prosecution, strongly opposed the application for the postponement of the trial. He desired to remind his lordship that when the case was before the learned magistrate at Bow-street a desire was expressed on the part of those representing Mr. Wilde to have the case concluded as quickly as possible, and this was the reason why the proceedings were shortened and the remands lessened, so that the case might be ready for trial at this sessions. Under ordinary circumstances the difficulties mentioned by Mr. Mathews would be reasonable grounds for such an application, but he submitted that they were not reasonable in this instance, on the ground that in the proceedings which terminated at that court on April 5, and which led to Wilde's arrest, a plea of justification had been made to a charge of libel, and the statements contained in that plea of justification, which had to be prepared with the same certainty as an indictment, were delivered to Mr. Wilde some days before the trial took place, so the fullest possible information was given to Mr. Wilde as to the charges he would then have to meet. No fresh matter had been embodied in the present indictment, and nothing had been added to the charges in respect of which he was not then given information. In a case of this kind, he through it very important that the trial should take place without delay, and as he defendant had had every possible opportunity, having regard to the knowledge he possessed as to the nature of charges made against him, to prepare the defence, he asked that the application be not granted.

Mr. Justice Charles, after further argument, said that he had carefully listened to the observations of the learned counsel, and had carefully examined the affidavit. He did not having a fair trial, he thought that any suggestion such as that was groundless. He had no doubt but that both defendants would receive as fair and as impartial a trial at this sessions as at any ensuing session. He had carefully scrutinized the manner in which the affidavit was presented, but he could not upon a material laid before him grant the application for a postponement.