Editing 19 Apr 1895 - The Globe (London)

<b>[[Case File: Oscar Wilde]]</b>

Page 5, Column 3, [https://www.findmypast.com/image-viewer?issue=BL%2F0001652%2F18950419&page=6&article=054&stringtohighlight=%22oscar+wilde%22 Link]

<b><center>OSCAR WILDE - THE QUESTION OF BAIL</b></center>

The Exchange Telegraph Company states on the highest authority that nothing has yet been one in respect to making an application for bail in the case of Oscar Wilde, owing to the fact that two of the counsel who will defend the prisoner are at present out of town. On Monday next a conference will take place, when it will be definitely decided whether an application shall be made to postpone the hearing to the next sessions of the Central Criminal Court, or whether it shall be allowed to go on in the ordinary way, in which event the case, it is expected, will be taken on Friday next at the Old Bailey. In this event no application will probably be made, owing to the fact that after the learned judge has fixed the amount of the bail, it is necessary to give 48 hours' notice to the police, so that they can inquire as to the substantiality of the proposed sureties. If the application be made on Monday, and granted, Wilde could not be liberated until Wednesday. Should it be decided at the conference on Monday to ask for a postponement, bail will undoubtedly be applied for. The view that the judge is bound to grant bail, on a charge which only amounts to misdemeanor, is said to be supported by two decisions, though there is an instance in which it was disallowed by a High Court judge. The magistrate, however, can exercise his discretion in such a matter. The gentlemen who will defend Wilde are the same as appeared in his action against the Marquis of Queensberry, namely, Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys.

Page 6, Column 2, [https://www.findmypast.com/image-viewer?issue=BL%2F0001652%2F18950419&page=6&article=054&stringtohighlight=%22oscar+wilde%22 Link]

<b><center>OSCAR WILDE AT BOW-STREET</b></center>
<center>COMMITTED FOR TRIAL</center>

At Bow-street to-day, before Sir J. Bridge, the hearing was resumed of the charges preferred against Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor under the Criminal Law Amendment Act - Mr. C. F. Gill, instructed by Mr. Angus Lewis, of the Treasury, prosecuted; Sir E. Clarke and Mr. Humphreys appeared on behalf of Wilde; Mr. A. Newton defended Taylor; and Mr. J. P. Grain watched the case in the interests of Mavor. -- The court was again crowded. - Charles Parker (recalled) gave evidence as to certain charges against Taylor - William Parker (also recalled) spoke as to the conduct of Taylor at Little College-street. - Frederick Curley, an ex-detective inspector, said he had acted for Messrs. Russell and Day with respect to certain inquiries made in connection with the case. He had visited a house in Chapel-street, Park-walk, and on one occasion received a hat box containing some papers from the landlady. Among them were several cheques made out to Mavor. - Charles Robinson, a book-keeper at the Savoy Hotel, said that Wilde stayed there from March 2 to March 29, 1893. - Theodore Leith, a clerk at the Marylebone branch of the London and Westminster Bank, produced an account of Taylor's banking transactions there from January 1, 1893, to December 29, 1893, when the account was closed - Reginald W. Brooks, a clerk at the Westminster branch of the London and Westminster Bank, put in a certified copy of Wilde's banking account from January, 1892, up to April 9 last - John W. Lehmann and Ebenezer Howard, shorthard writers, next produced a transcript of the shorthand notes taken by them at the Central Criminal Court in the case of the Queen v. Queensberry.

Mr. Gill intimated that this closed the case for the prosecution. He said he had taken from the depositions the charges on which he would ask the magistrate to commit the defendants for trial. - The Clerk having read the list.

Sir J. Bridge asked the prisoners whether they wished to say anything in answer to these charges - Wilde: Not at present, your worship.

Mr. Newton asked the magistrates 'ruling upon the question whether there was sufficient evidence upon which Taylor could be committed. The charge rested entirely upon the evidence of two persons, who, in the highest sense of the word, were discredited witnesses.

Sir J. Bridge considered the evidence sufficient for committal.

Taylor reserved his defence.

Mr. Humphreys asked that Wilde should be admitted to bail. He said that his client was prepared to find a substantial amount. - Mr. Newton also applied that Taylor should be admitted to bail. The magistrate pointed out that he had to exercise his discretion in granting bail, having regard to the gravity of the charge, and the strength of the evidence. With reference to the former there was to his mind no offence so grave as those charged against the prisoners; and as to the evidence, he would say no more than it was not slight. Therefore he refused bail. - Prisoners were then removed to the cells.