The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-04-02
ALL SORTS OF TANGLE
MAI. JENKINS SECURED DIVORCE
AND THEN MARRIED AGAIN.
cures A1imony-Trfa1s of the
Rioters.

Attorney Thomas Hanna c1as succeeded in
securing alimony for his client in the Jen-
kins divorce case, and is waiting for the
court to fix the amount. Although the liti-
giants are Indianapolis people, their marital
troubles have all been aired in the Illinois
courts. The last decree of the court was
issued at East St Louis Monday. Maj.
Thomas K. Jenkins, the plaintiff in the orig
inal complaint for divorce. had lived in In
dianapolis nearly all his life. The defend
art, Nancy j. Jenkins. resides at No. 66ia
North Pennsylvania street. She has some
reputation as an artist. Maj. jenkins is sixty
one years old, while his ex-wife is twenty
years his Junior. For several years the Jen-
kins family lived at No. 400 North Illinois
street, and afterward resided at No. go
North Pennsylvania street. Major Jenkins
was for seventeen years connected with the
railway mall service, with headquarters in
this city. He left the service in 1888, and
went out to st. Elmo, H.. to take a position
az auditor of railway company. Mrs. Jen-
kins, with her SON, remained in this city.
Prior to his taking up residence in Illi-
nois there had been some trouble between
Maj Jenkins and his wife, but after the de-
parture of the former the breach began to
widen. In two or three months the Major
returned, and 1t is claimed that ne came back
to advise his wife to get a divorce She de-
clined to listen to the proposition, and he
went back to his duties at st. Elmo. About
this time Mrs. Jenkins learned that her hus-
band had become infatuated with a woman
at st. Elmo who was known as Freda fetch
CT. Mrs. Jenkins claimed to have received
letters from the Fletcher woman, in which
the most endearing terms were used concern
ing Major Jenkins During all this time the
latter had been sending money TO his wife,
and in 1894 he came back home. when the
question of divorce was again discussed by
husband and wife. It is said that the Major
on that occasion holly declared that IL Mrs
Jenkins would not apply for the divorce he
would seek the separation himself. A short
time later he brought the suit in the Circuit
Court at Vandalia, Ill, charging incompat-
Utility. Mrs. Jenkinss attorneys say that the
notice of publication was made in village
ent had no opportunity of acquainting her
self of the proceedings against her. Not
understanding, Mrs. jenkins heard of the
pending suit and hurried out TO Vandalia.
There she had an interview with her hus-
band, and the result was that the Major
dismissed the suit.
Mrs. jenkins continued to oppose sepa-
ration, and her attorneys insist that she
believed there would be no further action
in that direction on her husbands part. 1t
had been betrayed drought a ST. Emo
newspaper sent her last November. A
marked paragraph stated that Major Jenk-
ms and his new bride had taken rooms in
st. Elmo. Subsequently Mrs jenkins
learned that the new bride" was Freda
Fletcher. The indianapolis wife could get
no news OF her recreant husband other than
contained in the newspaper and employed
lawyers to look up the matter. After a
good deal or correspondence the attorneys
found out that Major Jenkins had secured
his divorce in East st. Louis last August
Under the Illinois statutes. where divorce
has been obtained by publication and there
within three years after the decree has been
issued, come in with an answer showing
why the divorce should be set aside. I'm
der this law attorney Hanna, acting for
Mrs. Jenkins, filed a motion in the East St.
Louis court for an investigation, and at the
same time petitioned the court for alimony.
The court set down the hearing for alimony
for last Monday. when 1t came up.
Mrs. Jenkins's attorneys claimed that
jenkins was not a resident of Illinois when
the application for divorce was made, and
further that he was actually living with
his wife in Indianapolis when he ayerred
that he did not know. of her whereabouts.
there had been an actual severance of the
marriage relation by decree of former
term. the question of alimony could not be
considered. The decree should first be set
aside, SO that the couple could be placed in
their former positions of husband and wife,
| after which a motion for alimony pending
SUIT, WOuIu De properly SoiiSiueiou. ne
court held that divorce procured when the
defendant is served by publication is not a
valid decree until the expiration Of three
years, and during the time the defendant
may appear and ask leave to answer as in
an original suit. 1t would not be fair, he
said, to set aside the decree first because
If either of the parties had married subse-
uuent to the entering of the decree an in
dictment for bigamy might follow. In case
of the success of the defendant, however,
the plaintiff would have no cause to COM
rlain of a criminal prosecution, as he ac-
cepts his decree at his peril. The court de-
cided that Mrs Jenkins is entitled to ali
mony, and announced that he would fix the
amount later.
jenkins and his new wife are living in
Mexico at present. The Major owns a third
interest in a silver mine near Panuco de
Coronado, State of Durango. It is said he
is prosperous.