Evening journal., 1889-08-03
A DELAWARE DIVORCE.
How Prominent Couple Were sepa-
rated by the Delaware Legislature.

How Prominent Couple Were sepa-
rated by the Delaware Legislature.
The following story is published in the
New York Sun of to-day as specia.
dated this city:
"The cleverly suppressed story of how
Mrs. Catherine Van Auken. daughter of
the late Commodore Garrison, secured a
lightning divorce through the Delaware
Legislature In April last has been recalled
by the marriage Of Mrs. Van Auken aud
Judge George p. Andrews, justice of the
Supreme Court OF New York, in London
last Wednesday. The story is known
only 10 few persons who were familiar
with legislative affairs.
Some time in the early part Of last
January two handsomely dressed women,
accompanied by man, leased Of a real
estate dealer here residence on Van
Buren, street. a fashionable part of this
city. The man gave the name of John
II. Judge, and his occupation as a New
York lawyer. They furnished the house
luxuriously and lived in most elaborate
STYLE but maintained an exclusiveness
that attracted the attention OF
their neighbors. Soon after their
appearance advertisements appeared in
the Wilmington papers giving notice
that Caiharine M. Van Auken would
apply TO the Legislature for divorce
from her husband, Barrett H. Van Auken.
The Legislature of Delaware is noted for
the facility by which divorce can b
obtained, and as at least one hundred of
such notices appear in the papers every
session, nothing was thought of this.
MRS Van Auken did not appear before
the Committee on Divorce until late in
April near the close Of theasession. Mr.
Judge, Mrs Van Auken, and the second
lady, who is her daughter, went quietly
to Dover and engaged Col r. II Cooper
prominent lawyer and lobby is' TO act as
counsel before the committee. Every
precaution for secrecy was taken The
attorney called on all the newspaper men
and at his request no mention was made
of the case. A correspondent Of one OF
the Wilmington papers was secretary of
the committee, aud he was the only per
son outside of the committee who knew
anything of the facts upon which the di
vorce was granted. To furtherkeep it quiet
the proceedings of the committee We're Sc
cret.
"The story told the committee was
that Mrs. VanAuken had married her
husband in 1859, and three or four years
afterward she discovered that he was in
sane. He was placed in private insane
asylum, but subsequently recovered.
For several years he was rational, but
again lost his mind and was again sent
TO the asylum This time Mrs. VanAuken
learned that nrior TO her marriage hei
husband had been confined in al
asylum. She feigned indignation be
he ~ Ia
ing deceived, and determined not to live
with him any more. She accordingly set
tied on him $4,000. The money was
interest, and Mrs Van Aukens counse
exhibited papers to show that she hac
allowed this sum TO remain intact up tC
the time of her applying for the divorce
She also furnished guarantee TO the
committee that the money would remair
intact during his lifetime.
After some hesitation the divorc,
pessed the committee, and was rushed
through both houses Of the Legislature
as quickly as possible. Some good fee
were paid to secure the result. Mrs. Vai
Auken tarried but a short time in VIII
mington after receiving the divorce
Prior TO her departure however,
/ pletshhl ulnHer was given 10 utI Counstl
Colonel Cooper and Governor Biggs Not
withstanding all these precautions, tn
legality Of the divorce obtained is ex
tremely doubtful Under the law Of th
state a person obtaining divorce mus
be resident Of the state. At the TIM
Mrs VanAuken obtained a divorce shl
had only rented the Van Buren, stree
house few months, and never establishes
..a "a trs4 taafs NaIo nF
laws person, to be a citizen Of the state
must come into il with the intention O
taking up permanent occupation there
and must further remain for one year be
fore entitled to the privileges of citizen
ship. Cases have arisen where divorce
thus granted have been declared null an