The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-12-24
She Figured as Petitioner In
Noted Divorce Cas-.
Her Father. Bishop Littlejohn, Tes-
titled In Her Behalf.


Island when q bishop took the witness
stand and testified In his daughters De-
half to secure q divorce from Almet +.
jerks, the corporation counsel for the
city Of Brooklyn.
This divorce was granted by Chief
Justice Mstteson on May %, 1891. 1t was
Q nine days wonder in society and among
Episcopal churchmen.
Twenty years ago Eleanor Maud little
john was one of the leaders Of the
younger set In the most exclusive Brook
lyn society. She was rs brilliant rs she
was beautiful. A little above the medium
height, with q wealth of golden hair,
blue eyes, and q superb figure, she re-
ceived no end OF attention after she was
presented to society at a reception given
in her noDor by Bishop and Mrs. Little
john az their Remsen street residence.
Among those VINO paid her marked. atten-
tion was Almet +. jerks, then q young
lawyer in Brooklyn, with prospects of a
brilliant future. At length the engage
ment was announced, and the marriage
took place In Grace Church, Brooklyn,
on Decem Der 8, 1878. The Rev. Dr.
William A. Snively, rector of the church
performed the ceremony, and the Right
Rev. John Williams, Bishop of Connecti-
cut, pronounced the bensdiction. The
late Walker Blaine, son Of the late James
elaine, was the best man.
The bride was given away by her
father. and Q largely attended reception
followed the Wedding. 1t was said that
the bride received presents aggregaling
in value over $4,000.
Mr.. jerks was then "a years old and
his bride was %. After an extended
wedding tour they went back to Brook
lyn and began seseepinr in the home
the bridegroom bad made ready at Ga
Montague street. To all appearances they
were a most happy and devoted couple.
As the years went by however, II began
to be rumored that Mr.. and Mrs. jerks
were not living happily Together. Friends
OF the two secuted these tales, saying
that there was absolutely no truth in
them. One day, however, in 1883, q little
more than 10 years after their wedding
DAY, Mr.. and Mrs. jerks separated. She
up HIS residence at the Hamilton Club.
Not line got into the apers about the
separation, but most OF the intimate
friends OF the two knew about Ii and
wondered at the cause. Neither Mr.. nor
Mrs. Jencks would discuss the 50 bject
even with those who knew them best
Finally cause wss hipted at by the gos-
sips and because no letter one could be
found, 1t was generally sccepted as the
true one. Then, Brooklyn society, having
settled the question to its satisfaction,
ceased to discuss the subject, and soon
forgot all about 1t.
In August, 1889 Mrs. jerks was missed
by her Brooklyn friends. Inquiry as TO
where she was only elected tho informs-
tion that she hao gone on an extended
visit to friends in New England. The
months came and went, and still Mrs.
jerks remained with her trends in New
Engand. One morning in the latter part
of May, 1891, when Brooklyn people picked
up their newspapers, they read with amaze
ment that on May. 25, 1891, Justice Matte
son sitting In the Supreme Court OF
Rhode Island In Newport, had granted
the petition OF Maud Eleanor Jenks, as
she was then called, praying for an sbso-
Lutte divorce from her husban !, Almst II.
Jsnks. The petition was filed on Feb. 81,
1891, the ground on which the petition
was based being desertion and continued
non-support.
When the case was heard the testimony
Of only three witnesses was taken. These
witnesses were the petitioner, her father,
and her aunt, Mrs. Hortenss p. Douglass.
The petitioner, having been q resident,
OF Rhode Island for the required time,
one year, and her case having been made
out, Justice Matfeson entered the decree,
without alimony giving her permission
to resume her maiden name. Mr.. jerks,
although represented d by counsel, made
no objection to the divorce.
The divorce proceedings caused no end
of comment, and the fact that Bishop
Littlejonn rot only sanctioned 1t, but
went into the witness box that by his
testimony he might aid his daug bter in
securing the divorce. occasioaed q great
controversy among the members and
ministers Of the Episcopal Church.
The discussion wa, SO general among
the clergy ana lsity OF the church that
Bishop Littlejohn could not help but
hear some OF IL. Therefore, that he
might do all that he could to set himself
right before his own people and the
church at large, he took an unusual step.
He convened what wss called "high
ecclesiastical COURT, made up Of Bis
hop Williams of Connecticut who ss,is-
ted at the marriage; Bishop Potter OF
New York, Bishop scarborough OF New
Jersey. and Bishop starkcy Of Newarg.
snd laid hsfore them all the facts OF the
case. This was done soout two weeks
after tte divorce was granted. The
court, after carefully going over all the
evidence In the case ana considering oil
tie facts re iderer q DC ision which was
printsd aud sent To all the olergymen in
the oioo'ss and to many conspicuous lay.
mep, hut not published. The decision.