The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-16 00:00:00

When did you write that ?—ln August or July, 1863,

After you were injured?—Yes.
What is the meaning of it—you will give him another
trial 11—The meaning is, that I wished him to understand
that I would see his wife. He had asked me to go there
not at business hours, and that he had not time at busi-
ness hours to operate on my coin.
Then he was operating on your corn after you were
violoted, as you say you were ?—Yes.
You asked for money ?—Yea.
And you threatened him if you did not get it ?—As I
said before.

Did you ask him to go to your father's house after Oct.,
1862 ?—Yes.

Did you accompany that by asking for money ?—Yes.
You swore that you never asked him for money when he
• was knighted ?—I did.
Is that your handwriting ?—I would not swear whether
it is or not. It is very like it.

Did you admit before the magistrate at Bray that you
wrote it ?—I was in such confusion that I did not know the
words I used.

If you swore it was your handwriting, would it be true
or false ?—I do not know. . I do not think I would phrase
a letter asking for £3 in the way that is phrased. [A. letter
was here put in, in which the witness wrote for money, say-
ing, " You will see what will happen if you are not prompt
as usual."] _ _ _

When did you write that P—ln February, 1864.
Was he prompt in giving you money?—He was.

Under threats ?—No.

What did you mean by " Bring it or send it ?"—lf he
chose to give me money, I wanted it for the "sinews of
war," as he phrased it, to carry on the publication.

And he was prompt in lending money before your alleged
outrage, as well as after it ?
Did you write to him saying for him to bring out X2O on
the following Wednesday, at four o'clock, and not to send a
messenger ?—Yes ; I intended to receive him, and keep
our servant outside of the door while I spoke of the disputes
and annoyances which took place in his house.
Did you want the money ?--I did, for my own wants.
You wanted him to lend it to you ?—I did not care
whether he did or not.

Did he reply to that letter?—He did.
[Sergeant Sullivan read the reply, in which Sir William
Wilde declined the proposed meeting, and said that if she
showed she did not want to injure herself by any further
publication she should have the money. The witness sent
a reply saying that her object was to take up the I 0 U
which he held for money advanced to her.]
In reply to Sergeant Sullivan, the witness stated that,
when she wrote for £2O, Sir William wanted to enter into
stipulations with her as to the terms on which she would
take it.

The cross-ex imination then comes to the affair of 14th
October, 18G2.
Sergeant Sullivan—This one transaction you described
occurred between you and Sir W. Wilde in October, 1862 ?
—Yes.

Acd nothing of the sort occurred before or after ?—Not
before.

Did it after ?--I consider it was attempted.
Did you know what happened to you the day you were
in the study in October ?—Yes.

You know perfectly well that day you were outraged ?
—Yes.

And the SAM thing was attempted after P--Yes.
When P—ln July, 1863.

Was that before you published the pamphlet F—Yes.
There is not a word in the pamphlet about it ?—There
are a great many circumstances not mentioned in the
pamphlet.
There is not a word in the pamphlet about the second
attempt F—That is for you to judge.

Was there a third ?—Not after that.
Was there in the interval F—l don't know.

Is that your answer?—lt is; for Ido not know what
motives actuate people in certain acts ; or whether they in-
tend one thing or another thing, or whether they intend
real rudeness or worse.

You had been abused in October, and you knew it the
(lay it happened ; and after that you cannot tell whether the
man attempted to do the same thing or not P—No.
Nor form an opinion ?—I formed opinions. You did not
ask my opinion. You asked for matters of fact; and I
cannot state the matters of fact.

It is whether an attempt was made to repeat the offence
on you again. Yuu don't know whether there was or not ?
—There was rudeness and roughness, leading to it.

How often ?—Two or three times.
Did you believe it was fur the purpose of securing your
person ?—I thought it.
And you went time after time to the study where this
treatment had been offered you P—Yes.
And you took his money F—Yes.
The plaintiff was cross-examined as to the statement in
the pamphlet, that chloroform had been employed.
Did he attempt to take advantage of you under the influ-
ence of chloroform, as described in the pamphlet ?—As de.
scribed in that pamphlet it is not true.
Then you published'a falsehood to the world pub-
lished a story.

Had you eny intention of injuring Sir William Wilde
when ycu published that ?—.l had an intention to justify
myself.

You had no intention to injure him in charging him with
chloroforming his patients, and then attempting to outrage
them P—lt did not matter to me whether it injured him or
not. I had as liitle coinmiseration !or him as he had for
e.

You state in the introduction to your pamphlet that it
contain nu altered and cirtailed, but by no means exagge-
rated account cf Sir William Wilde's conduct P—l say still
it is not exaggerated, but it is altered.

It is not exaggerated ?:.Yes, I cling to that.
It is not an exaggeration to say you had been chloro-
formed 1)—It was as bad' es chloroform, but too gross for
publication,
But still you went back to the study and took the money,
and wrote for tickets to thd ball ?—Yes.
And took dresses from h m ?—I got money for the dress,
but not the dress.
Did you buy the dress with his money?--1 did.
And wore it ?—Yes.
Whose money bought it l_ms.
The man who outraged 30, p
—Yes.
Who suggeßted this wickkd notion of the chloroform to
you ?—No one I requiredto think of something that was
treacherous.

-W;;U'tit to injure Sir Wiliam Wilde you concocted this
false story P—To prevent hit doing me further injury, and
to try and extract from hint as I said before, some inter-
ference, legal or otherwise, that I might, in the presence of
others, say all I had to say,
As to the day the alleged )ffence took place, you cannot
fix the date of it P---Not answered.
You know it happened thtt day ?—I did at the time.
Du you mean while in histieun
The
ee atime." Chiefnt
eh Sullivan—That Sg f jas
ts
ice—she 8I quite understand "at the
tice
knew she was abused before—
T s before she left the house she
knew she was violated, but
dont know that she rays that
at the time sho was violated she knew it.
e rhcu
Sergeant Sullivan—You ihply that you did not know it
Did you see the servants Jere ?—I did.
'1 he people in the hall
at thetime
Yet passed when you were going
upstairs or going ?
out itn I was going upstairs.
You passed people iu the lel' P—l did.
Is not that the hall where the
the room ? —Yes. people collect to go into
Yes. loom open from the hall ?
Dllooeess
nu::
the hsu door
porter
Stand in the hall to open the
door ?—Yes.
cannot tell?—Yes.
NAnordwititwhains
finontrhhat omourorsof
the
time ;
3bu were outraged on a day you
and four P—l cannot tell willt day it was; I think it was
the 16th of October.
Did you not say yesterdly it was the 14th 2-1 don't
you say between one
know what date it was precisely.
You a woman, representtg yourself as a virgin thus
aggrieved, cannot tell the da
your story P.—lt is.
Sergeant Sullivan cross-exunined the witness to show that
the thought of the distracted language and passionate ges•
3on which it happened—is that
tures alleged to have been used and displayed by Sir William
Wilde immediately after the alleged act had got into her
mind from reading a book in which a similar scene was
described. After some other questions, Sergeant Sullivan
said he bad nothing mere to as the witness.
Sergeant Armstrong, the leadiitg counsel for the plaintiff,
put a f)w additional questions; he asked : Did you hear me
state that the circumstance of there not being future illicit
intercourse between
fault of his, and that he made approaches for the purpose ?
—Yes. you and Sir William Wilde was no

The Chief Justice—What leads you to say that, except
on one occasion, there was no intercourse, but on subse.
quent occasions it wag attempted ?—Miss Travers—What
I considered approaches to it—attempts.
Sergeant Armstrong—lt is an unpleasant matter, but it
must be inquired into, State anythieg he did or said from
which you inferred an improper intercourse on his part.
Miss Travers—He insisted on my leaving a certain place
in the room, and ha was redo in his raanner—ho tried to
compel roe to go to the other part of the room.
Sergeant Armstrong—Was there any gesture? It is very
hard to convey it, I am sure.
Sergeant Sullivan—Was there any gesture ? Let her state
what occurred. With great respect, her statement about
gestures won't do ; let her state what took place.
The Chief Justice—This is really a very distressing sub-
ject, but people who come into court must leave considera-
tions of that sort outside, Let this lady !gate the details of
what occurred on these occasions.

Sergeant Armstrong—There can be no mock modesty.
There is no room for it in this case—(To Miss Travers)—
State what it was.

The Chief Justice—State what you say occurred on the
subsequent occasions as nearly as you can after this viola-

tion you speak of in October, 1862. Don't state it in general
terms, but tell the facts that you say occurred, and which
you are pleased to call attempts or overtures.
Miss Travers—l think it was in November, 1862, that
Mr Wilde wanted me to go into another part of the room
(after a pause), and I refused, and he thought to drag me,
and in dragging me he hurt me ; and when I prevented him
he said I had not faith and confidence in him, and that I
did nothing he told me.

The Chief Justice—Did he say anything on that occa-
sion?—He said nothing. The other occasion was in the
July following.
The Chief Justice—What was the other occasion ?—I
was in an arm chair. He caught hold of my hand and forced
me back to sit down in it, and said ho would not let me go
until I said whether I loved him or not. He said that if I
said I loved him ho would let me go ; and I answered,
"Yes, I love you very much; you will one day know how
much I love you." He turned round and looked at me and
said, "I was going to say ycu were very good, but you
finished it—you tackEd a word there that makes me think
you meant ironically," or something to that effJct. In
forcing me into the chair he bruised my finger.
Sergeant Armst, ong—There was no improper occurrence
between you then ?—No.
The re-examination was understood to have been con-
cluded when the Court rose.

DUBLIN, Thursday Night.

To-day Miss Travers proved the receipt of the letter con•
taining the alleged libel. 'I he plaintiff was not cross •ex-
amined, and this closed her case.
Sergeant Sullivan, for the defendant, insisted that whether
the plaintiff was justified in the imputation she had written
agaLst Sir Wm. Wilde was foreign to the issue involved,
and he would not suffer his client to enter upon any investi-
gation of the concocted charges. He dwelt upon the dis-
parity between the statements in the pamphlet and the viva
voce evidence ; upon the fact that no alarm had been given ;
that the plaintiff had gone back to the same house and into
the same study wherein it was said the offence had been
perpetrated; and that she had solicited, demanded, and
accepted money subsequent to the alleged outrage. The
true interpretation of Miss Travers's conduct and assertions
was that she was not accountable for her actions.

Lady Wilde was examined—She said that she had
offended the plaintiff by refusing to see her, and her revenge
was the consequence. She thought that plaintiff's intention
was to set up the supposition of an intrigue. She (Lady
Wilde) did not believe that any such WI.. it intercourse had
ev• r taken place. She had written the letter which had
been called a libel in good faith.
The case is still proceeding.