The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1891-03-04
THE ROCHE DIVORCE CASE.
THE APPLICATION GRANTED BY
THE COURT.
Mrs. Roche is Free ewoman-Dccisions
in Other Cnses--The McComb
Application Not
Granted.

The tulke-hOcne ulNpfHt'hot' nii.h
has excited so much interest," both IN
this country and Europe, on account
uf the high standing of the parties,
and the many legal questions involved,
WINS settled yesterday. as FAR as the
Courts of this State are concerned. by
a decree granting tho greatly wronged
lady an absolute divorce.
The case was entered about year
ago by Hon, George Gray, Levi G.
Bird, Esq, and II. IL. Ward, Esq, who
left nothing undone to secure testt-
mony In favor Of the applicant. This
WINS heard by A. j. Cooper ESQ, who
was appointed a commissioner by tho
Court.
After hearing the testimony. Mr..
Cooper presented his report at. the
November term of court In which he
recommended that the divorce be
granted. There were, however, some
intricate legal questions connected
with the matter, and the case was held
under consideration by the Court until
this term. The Court agreed TO hear
argument on the matter, and MS Senn-
tor Gray was detained in Washington,
his place was taken by the Hon. Ihos.
i. Bayard. The argument was heard
last Thursday afternoon, when Mr..
Bayard spoke about two hours and
mnde one OF the greatest efforts of his
life.
On Saturday Mr.. Bayard inquired OF
the Court when lie could expect de-
cision in the matter, aud was told,
most probably OH Monday.
The decision, however. was not
given until yesterday, when tho FOL
lowing decree was granted, the Cb'ct
Justice not concurring:
FRAScEs liocnE No 1870, Nay term
vs.. 1870.
JAMES b. RocHt, Petition for Divorce.
And now to wit this twenty fifth day
of Noyenbcr, in the year OF our Lord,
one thousand eight hundred ana nine
ty Alexander i. Cooper. ESQ, the
commissioner appointed by court in
this cause, having duly reported to The
court here, the evidence in the case,
together with the finding of award
there. and tho same, together with
the petition and process in said cause
having been read and considered by
court and the court being satisfied
from said evidence with the finding or
award of said commissioner, and it
appearing to the court that tho
Baid Frances Roche and james
II. Roche were lawfully married at
tho time IN tho petition set forth
and were and are lawful to the
said court; that the said James
IL. Roche after the solennization of
tho said marriage, being uumlndful of
his eoniugal VOW did desert tho said
Frances Roche and such desertion
hath been persisted in for the space Of
more than three years before the filing
OF the said petition in this cause; and
further that Suid James Il. Roche hath
Wiliully neglected Tor more than three
years befora tho filing of said petition
In this cause; and further that said
james B. Butkc-R9ehe both wilfully
neglected for more than three years
before the filing OF said petition to
provide said Frances Roche, his wife,
with the neces5aries of life suitable TO
her condition. 1t Is therefore con
Bidcred, adiudged, and decreed by the
court that the marriage between the
said Finnccs Roche and James Il.
Roche ought 10 be dissolved, and the
marriage aforesaid between tho said
Franees Roche and James B. Roche is
taccorditB to The statute in such case
made and povidcd) pronounced, ad-
Judged, deGreed and declared to be
dissolved and tho said parties to be di-
Yoreed from the bonds OF matrImony
and separated accordingly; and that
all and every the duties, rights and
claims aerluing to either Of the said
parties by reason OF The said marriage
shall henceforlh cease and determine.
Aud II is further ordered, adiudged
and decrecd that the said Frances
Roche be granted tho sole and con-
elusive cafe, education and custody Of
the said Cynthia Burke Roche,
Edmund Maurice Burke Roche and
Francis George Burke Roche, the three
minor children of the said Frances
Roche and James Burke Roche, and il
ls further ordered, adiudged and
Aecreed by the court that the said
James b. Roche, the respondent, pay
the costs OF this cause, and the costs
are taxed at tho sum OF S2Sl35
And NOW 10 wit, this third day of
March, a. d., one thousand eight nun
dred and ninety-one, this case having
been held for further consideration
and adyisement by the court, and hav-
ing been argued In open court by the
counsel for the petitioner 1t is order
ed, adjudged and decreed by the court
that the decree heretofore made and
entered on the twenty-tlfth day OF
November A. d., ono thousand eight
hundred and ninety, be and the same
Is hereby confirmed and made final
and absolute; the chief justice not con-
curing therein.
JOIN ". HousToN,
CHARLES NJ. CULLEN, j.
OTHER CASES.
Another application which excited
considerable interest was that of James
@. McComb, for an absolute divorce
from his wife, Mary H. McComb. There
were number of sensational develop
ments IN this case, and it was general
ly supposed tho application would be
granted.
Mr. Bird, one of tho attorneys for
tho applicant, evidently was not so
hopeful, for as soon as the court con-
vened yesterday afternoon he gave
notice that he would apply for writ
oil error In case the decision was
against his client.
A few minutes afterwards 1t was an
nounced that tha findings Of John II.
Rodney, Esq, commissioner in the
case, had been set aside and the appli-
cation refused. Unless Mr.. Bird sue
ceeds I'm having this decision reversed,
the application which Mrs. McCoinb
has filed Tor divorce from her hus-
band, will be taken up and heard before
commissioner.
The other divorces granted were:
Edward McInall, Jr.. from Laura
Ridgway AlcInull; Sarah l.. Carey from
Robert p. Carey, Jr.; Emma L. Fouge-
ray from Rene j. Fougeray; Frank Nc
Clary from Lima McClary, the applica-
lion OF Saunders VS.. Saunders being
refused.
Aeout4 o'clock court adjourned until
, the May term.