Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1891-02-27
BURKE ROCHE CASE.
The Evidence on Behalf of
Petitioner Read in Court.
WHY SHE WANTS A DIV RICE

She Married DissoIute Husband, Whom
Her Father Supported In Dissipation
For SIX Years Afterwards He Sent Her
Home For Money. and Whom She Failed
to Return, Broaght over Her Two chill
dren and Cast Them on Her Fathers
Doorstep Not. II card From Since.
The case of Frances Burke Roche who
sues for an absolute divorce from her
husband, James Boothby Burke-R Roche,
WAS taken up yesterday afternoon in the
Superior Cour5, and the evidence for q g
petitioner read The divorce was said
TO have been granted at the last
term of court, but was finally continued
because OF legal technicality given rise
to by an opinion expressed in a letter
published IN the Pail Mall Gazette from
the respondent, in which he denied the
authority Of an American court to grant
a divorce, as by his marriage with the
petitioner he had made her resident of
Great Britain and Ireland Ex-Secre-
tary Thomas +. bayard. In the absence
of Senator Gray, who was attending the
funeral of Senator Williams Of Mary
land, appeared with Levi G Bird aud II.
Il Ward for the petitioner, Frances
Burke Roche
Tried 10 Serve Notice.
Bird gave brief history Of this eele-
brated case which has been a matter for
comment not only here but among the
society circles of New York OF which the
petitioner has been shining light. and
in the swell clubs Of Pcadilly and the
East Side Of London. where the respondent
Is said TO have squaudered his father in
laws money. With reference to the
published statement Of the respondent in
the Pail Mall Gazette where he stated
that no summons had been served upon
him Mr. Bird made a detailed statement
showing that ample notice had been
given MIN through his attorneys. but
that all attempts TO locate him d failed
Counsel for the petitioner, he said, had
secured the services of the Pinkerton
Detective Agency Of New York city who
had communicated with the Scotland
Yard Detective Agency Of London to
| Investigate the matter member Of
Scotland Yard ascertained the where
abouts Of Mr.. Burke Roche who lived
principally at the home of his mother
Lady FeImoy, No Eckles House,
London, he having no residence Of his
own. A summons was left there An
other was served on his solicitors,
Messrs Stebbns, Dykson ard Sykes, No
2l1 Hall street, London All attempts TO
serve the summons on the petitioner per
soually had failed An affidavit was read
from a member Of the Scotland Yard
Detective Agency, which stated that
although diligent search had been made
for the petitioner to serve the summons
on him personally yet he could not be
found.
Reading the Evidence.
Mr. Bird pext read to the court the
testimony that had been given by wit
nesses for the petitioner before the
commissioner, United States District
Attorney Alexander 3 Cooper
Lucy Hewitt, sister of the petitioner.
gave Evidence before the commissioner to
the effect that she was present at the
marriage Of Frances Work to James
Boothby Burke Roche In Christ Church.
New York city on September % 1880.
After the marriage in New York, hus
hand and wife set sail for London,
England There they lived together
! until December, 1856 The family wer,
all supported by my father, Frank Work
during the whole time Of their married
life Mr.. Roche never contributed any
thing toward the support OF nv sister
and her children.
Bulke-Roohs Wanted Money.
When Mrs Roche came to this country
\ in December, 1886, she came at che ia
stance of her husband, Mr. Burke Roche
She was sent by MIN to entreat with Mr..
Work, my father, to advance money
enough to raise the heavy Indebtedness
OF Mr.. Burke Roche My father, finding
that Roche had Incorporated money
sent to his wife, refused to advance any
more money.
Mrs Roche came to New. York from
London In December, 1856 She brought
with her the oldest child Her husband
followed with the two boys in March
| 1897. When MIR. Roche found thet th,
money was not forthcoming he used any
thing but language becoming a gentle
man. Mr. Roche left the two boys on m,
fathers doorstep, without even inquir-
ing one word about his wife He mex
wrote to my sister from the hotel @her,
he was staying and asked for an inter
view. The interview was held in tn,
presence of my father in his own housl
the next day. he never came again *
visit b Is wife. Never even ffered to TAX
his wife back to England with him. I'll
never held any more Communication will
my sister, who came to live in Delswar
in May. 1889 Previous to her coming Ii
Delaware she lived with her father ii
New York Neither did Mr.. Burke
Roche make any effort to see his children
OF send them token Of remembrance.
Frank Works Testimony.
Frank Work, father Of the petitioner
gave corroborate evidence before the com
missioners. He said: In reply to m,
questions prior TO the marriage of Mr.
| burke Roche to my daughter, he re pre-
sented to me faithfully that he had 81
ample income for himself and wife
continued sending money to Mrs. Roch
during all their married life. During th
year 1886. sent over to my daughte
large sums of money. All Of this sh
turned over to Roche, and 1t went to pa,
his gaming debts, as | afterward earned
and other debts of his enormous extrava
gance. In December 1886, my daughte
arrived in New York. to induce me {,
advance sums Of money t
discharge her husbands debts
She continued to importune M
to advance sums TO discharge her hus.
band's Indebtedness, but did not accedt
to her request. In February. 1887, he
husband arrived in New York. He ha,
! previously sent me message to NEE
him and the two little boys,--twins-a
the dock. did not go myself, but sen
a servant to meet him. He had neve
, communicated with his wife Ihave beel
compelled to support my daughter eve
since her marriage have heard Of hin
] bainn, In Nav York onea ainca that intar