Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-05-25
suir ovSs A oHihD.
Hon. James Burke-korhe Takes Action
Against His wife-Ciaims tho Delaware

Hon. James Burke-Roche Takes Action
Against His wife--Ciaims tho Delaware
Divorce is Not Legal. i. In.
The Hon. James Roche, member OF
Parliament for Kerry, Ireland, who
has been separated from his wife, Mrs.
Burke Roche since 1886, obtained a
writ of hsbeas corpus from Judge
Beach, in the Supreme Court of New
York ON Saturday, requiring Mrs.
Burke Roche TO produce Cynthia, their
15-years-old daughter, in court next
Tuesday.
Mr.. Roche, as he calls himself, but
who is generally known as James
Boothby Burke Roche, brother of the
Baron Fermoy, and next in line for
the peerage, is at the Abemarle Hotel,
New York, while his wife, until Satur-
day, was at the home of her father,
Frank Work, No. ID East Twenty-sixth
street, that city.
In the petition on which the writ
was granted Mr.. Roche alleges that his
daughter Cynthia is imprisoned and
res trained of her liberty in the Work
mansion, and that he has been refused
an opportunity to see her and talk with
her, as provided for under the terms
of articles of separation that were
entered into between him and his wife.
The girl. however, is not at the
| address given in her fathers petition,
but is in attendance at fashionable
boarding school some, distance from
! New York, and tho step. taken is said
to be only the beginning of legal
battle between the father and mother
over the custody of the girl.
In Mr.. Roche's petition he states
that under the articles OF separation
entered into by him and his wife, it
was provided among other things that
Cynthia should reside with her mother,
but that her father should have free
access to her at whatever times and
places were agreeable to her and to her
mother. He says that this privilege
that recently all of his letters to his
Notwithstanding the fact that she is
anxious to see him, all Of his efforts
to obtain meeting have been futile.
When James Roothby Burke Roche,
second brother of Baron Edmond Fit2
Edward Burke Roche, was married to
the beautiful Fannie Work, in 1880,
ii was considered a love match. II
was in December, 1886, that the sep
aration took place. The whole trouble,
it was said, was over money matters.
Mrs. Burke Roche returned to live
with her father after the separation.
In May, 1890, she came to this city,
and, after obtaining legal residence
here, applied for o divorce on the
| ground OF desertion, failure TO provide
maintenance and absolute neglect. The
decree was granted by the Superior
Court on March Sd, 1891. 1t gave her
'the sole and exclusive care, education
| and custody of the three children
All of the justices of the court signed
the decree except Chief Justice
Comegys. who disssented. and gave as
his reason that he did not find the
petitioners husband was guilty either
of the offence of desertion or wilful
neglect to provide, as those terms are
understood in law. Mr.. Roche has
always maintained that this divorce
was illegal. He contends that Mrs.
Roche, when she married him, became
British subject and that in the eyes
of the British law the marriage bond
has never been dissolved. He is said
to have obtained decree from the
| British courts declaring the divorce
invalid. Under this he would have
the right to take charge of the chill
dren at any time he found them on
British territory.
During Mrs. Burke-Roche's resi-
dence in this city she made her home
most of the time at Sixth and Var
! Buren streets.