Rensselaer Republican, Volume 23, Number 40, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 June 1891 — A REMARKABLE DECISION. [ARTICLE]

A REMARKABLE DECISION.

In a Cass That Has Attracted "Widespread Attention. Bishops Hold That the Marriage of the Daughter of Bishop Listlejohn Was “Null and Void.” An extraordinary court has just rendered. at New York, a decision in a case which has attracted widespread social attention. The findings of the court, which was composed of four bishops of the Protestant Episcopal church, will create com - ment among clergymen and more than comment among curious laymen throughout the country.

| A. F, Jenks, corporation counsel of Brooklyn, was married to Maud E. Littlejohn, daughter of the venerable bishop of Long Island,on December 5, 1878. It was a very fashionable wedding, and attended by the most noted society people of this city and Brooklyn. Three years ago the couple separated and Mrs. Jenks went to Rhode Island, and, after obtaining a legal residence, she sued for an absolute divorce on the grounds of abandonment and non- ! support. In April last-she obtained a de- ! cree, resuming her maiden name, and returned to her father’s home at Garden City. A month later Mr. Jenks married the daughter of Deputy Register Barre, of Brooklyn. The granting of the divorce j was a great surprise, and the marriage of ' Jenks gave rise to no end of speculation. The Episcopalian church is opposed to divorces, and Bishop Littlejohn is a stick-: ' ler to this point. Nevertheless he was a | witness for his daughter on the trial of her ! suit. The couple had been married In accordance with church rites, and they were of age, had not been married before, and, 1 of course, never before divorced, were not related, and were married in the presence of witness. Therefore, to settle the talk among church people as to the propriety of his daughter’s action,and holding that in securing the decree she was blameless, Bishop Littlejohn called upon Bishop Williams, of Connecticut; Bishop Scarbrough, of New Jersey; Bishop Starkey, of Newark, and Bishop Potter, of New York, to try to decide whether his daughter had violated any law of the church.

The bishops heard the testimony not heard in the courts. They have just rendered their decision, which is that “the said marriage was null and void, initio, and further that the status of Maud E. Jenks in respect to the law and discipline of this church is the same as though such marriage had not taken place. It is believed that Miss Littlejohn intends to marry again and the action of the bishops leaves her free to act without incurring the church's disapproval.