New-York tribune., 1908-04-13
'BURKEs PEERAGE" WINS.

'Burkes Peerage." that wade mecum of the Brit
tsh aristocracy, well Of all those who have
any dealings directly indirectly. with King Ed
wards nobility, occasionally gets into trouble and
is compelled to assume the role of defendant In
lawsuits against it. Some years ago Lord Fer
moy's brother and heir. the Hon James Burke
Roche obtained verdict against ''Burkes Peer
age for having described his marriage to the
daughter of Frank Work, of New York. as having
been sundered by divorce 1t is perfectly true that
there had been a divorce, obtained by Mrs. Burke
Roche from the courts OF Delaware; but tnasmuciI
as 1t was not recognized by English law. and that
the decree was Illegal in the eyes of the English
authorities, the London tribunals decided that
"Burke's Peerage" had been wrong in describing
James Burke Roche a divorced man. and gave
judgment agains> the publishers of this standard
work. Since then ''Burke's Peerage' makes no
mention Of his having been divorced. and although
Frank Works daughter has since then married a
man hailing from Hungary, against whom she has
now instituted proceedings for divorce, she still
continues to 1gure in ''Burkes Peerage" and in
other works Of reference of the same authoritative
character well in Who's Who" etc. as the
full hedged wife Of the Hon. James Burke Roche
OF course. this experience caused the publishers
of 'Burkes' and OF other standard ''peerages' to
exercise more care than ever; but in spite of this
'Burke's' has just been called upon more to
go TO the expense OF defending a suit for libel,
brought against 1t BY Mrs. Montagu William c.
Perceval, whose husband is a member of the fam
fy Of which the Earl OF Egmont is the chief and
in the line of succession the various peerages.
hOnors and estates OF the head of the house. 1t
seems that MontaE1 Perceval who is a physician,
and grandson Of that Spencer Perceval who while
Prime Minister assassnated by John Belllng
ham IN the lobby Of the House OF Commons in
1912, married the first time Elizabeth
Middleton, who died in 1877. He then married in
1873, widow Of the Of Mrs. KendriCk daugh-
ter OF Bond Coke. a member of the English bar,
and proceeded TO Australia, where DR.. Perceval en-
gagged in the practice of his profession. The
rage was an unhappy one in every respect The
couple separated but were not divorced. and Mrs.
Perceval complains that she has repeatedly been
obliged TO sue her husband for the alimOny due
under the deed Of separation In 1903 DR.. PerCevaI
without having taken the trouble to secure the dis
solution of his second marriage. took to himself
third wife in the person OF Charlotte, daughter of
the late Rev. John Aubrey Carr. rector of the
parish Of Shipton OIiffe. in Goucestershire.
The publishers of ''Burke's Peerage" noti-
fed by DR.. PercevaI of his third marriage. and
placed II record in their issues of 1905 1906 and
1907, without taking the precaution to ascertain
whether the second marriage of the doctor had
been sundered either by death by divorce. Mrs.
PercevaI No. thereUpon brought suit against
'Burke's Peerage, the plea that the pubca
ton of the Doctors third marriage in standard
work Of such authority ''Burke's' implied that
his second marriage OF no account, and that
her right 70 the name Of Mrs. MOntagu Perceval
and to the eventuaty OF becoming one day
peeress OF the realm Countess OF Egmont
defective.
The courts have now decided against Mrs Per
cevaI, on the ground that defama tory word had
been used by "Burkes Peerage," and that there
fore action for libel could lie. 1t intimated
that if 'Burkes" had asserted that the plaintiffs
marriage had been sundered by divorce. in the Eb-
of any decree to that effect valid IN the
eyes Of English law. the statement would have
been regarded libellous, just in the case Of
the Hon. James Burke Roche and his American
wife MAROTISE DE FONTENOY