New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-05-29
BISHOPS SIGN d Strange STATEMENT.
THE MARRIAGE OF MAUD E. LITTLEJoHN DE
CLARED VOID FROM THE BEGINNING.

THE MARRIAGE OF MAUD E. LITTLEJoHN DE-
CLARED VOID FROM THE BEGINNING.
Interest In the recent divorce secured BY Maud E.
Littleohn, daughter Of Bishop Lttejohn, Of the Do
cese Of Long Island from Amet F. jerks, Corporation
Counsel Of Brooklyn. after ten years Of married life,
and the remarrlage OF Mr.. jerks renewed yester-
day by the announcement that Bishop Lttlejohn Sc
cured the judgment OF Bishops Williams, Of Connect
lieut. Scarborough OF NewJersey starkey, of Newark
Potter Of NewYor directly after the divorce pro-
ceedings TO the following effect
PRINTED, NOT PUBLISHED.
We, the undersigned Bishops Of Doceses contiguous
the Diocese Of Long Island acting at the Request OF the
Bishop OF said Diocese (who By the circumstances of the
case is precluded from actng under the provisions Of
Section T. 13 Title II OF the Digest and having
duly inquired examined the facts relating TO the
marriage Of Maud E. Lejohn to Aime F. jerks soem-
nzed in the Diocese OF Long Island The fifth day OF
December A. D. 1873. do hereby adjudge and declare
that in our opinion the said marriage null and void
sb nto and further that the status Of the said Maud
E. jerks in aspect tho law aud discipline Of this Church
though such marriage had not saken place
JOHN WILLIAMS Bishop Of Connecticut.
JOHN SCARBOROUGH Bishop Of New,Jersey.
THOMAS A. STARKEY. Bishop Of Newark.
HENRY c. POTTER, Bishop Of New-York
Diocesan House. 20 Lafayette Place, NewYork, April
49, 1891.
The divorce proceedings took place in Rhode Island.
where the statutory grounds Of abandonment and
sppOrt sufficient for an absolute divorce. The Blsn
obs declare that the union null and void from the be-
ginning but assign no for this. Mr.. jerks was
married the second time about a month after the
divorce suit TO Miss Lenore Barre daughter Of Deputy
Register william Barre and is now living with his new
wife in st. James Place The case has caused much
comment in Episcopal circles In Brooklyn. church
man Is quoted follows upon the subject:
ecclesiastical law in civil law certain marriages
are void ab initlo Marriage accomplished by fraud or
force void beginning, bigamous marriage or
one performed under Marriage within certain de-
grees Of consanguDity void the marriage Of man
with hts sisters child. The urpermost question in this
jerks affair and indeed the only Interesting question now
Is What fact that voded the marriage alb into
Was Mr.. jerks a married when he espOused Miss Lit
tlcjohnf Unquestonsby, Were they related within
the prohibited degrees Of conanguinyl Emphatcauy no.
Now Il may and probably Is the fact that legal dis
qualification was discovered tho end Of years Of their
married life unpleasant character to make Il
desirable to keep It from the public view.
clergyman OF the diocese said
Mrs. jerks made a mistake when she went to Rhode
Island 10 get divorce going out OF the State oil
New.York constituted abandonment by her OF her nus
hand in every moral sense know that the sentiments
OF the clergy eondenatoy OF the whole business
There are ecclesiastical volcanoes OF marrage-consanguin
itv annIty-but eanonical disabilities render marriage
voidabe not void and bishops have too far In
DECLINING that the marriage null and void alb nitio
All the bishoDs In Chrsendom cannot nulfy marriage
without the cooperation secular law. We are assuming
n nover In this case which used 70 condemn a.
usurnaton a, mower BY the Bishop Of Rome. We have
right TO know the precise nature Of the vodable act