Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-29
Figured in Property Law Suit.

HE also left the property bequeathed TO
his other children tied up so that if Mrs,
Elliott was living at their death the money
would go to her. This will caused a cele-
brated law suit in New York many years
ago and was decided in favor of Mrs.
Elliott
lone of Mrs. Elliott's own sisters became
the wife of Caleb Cope of Philadelphia, and
Mrs Elliott lived for time with the Copes.
She was married when mere child to
James Alexander of Mobile and quickly Sc
cured divorce. Some years later she mar
ried Mr.. Cochran of Philadelphia, mem
Der of the most exclusive set. Her next
husband, Mr.. Coolidge, did not move in the
same social circle and after her marriage
most of her old friends drifted away from
her Again she secured divorce, ana,
moving to Huntingdon, married Mr. Eillott.
who had obtained divorce from his wife.
From what l know of Mrs. Elliott and
Rishop Talbot | cannot believe any of the
many rumors that have been set afoat
while this case has been before the PUBIC.
Questioned Her Partaking Communion
Whether Bishop Talbot was the subject
of influences opposed to DR.. Irvine the cor
respondence at the time of the outbreak In
February, 1899, is interesting. DR.. Irvine
came to ST. Johns, in Huntingdon, in the
spring of 1898. In February, 1899, he
brought up the question of Mrs Elliott par
| to MY Dear Irvine" on February ., 1872
as follows:
THE woman to whom you refer is by the
canon communicated. L cannot believe
she will have the presumption to present
herself at the holy communion. II you
think there is any danger of her doing so 1t
would be better for you in SOME KIND and
gentle way to intimate to her her true con-
dition. OF course, you have no discretion
in the matter If she should present herself
before you speak to her, and If you think
she does it in Ignorance. then you can
speak to her afterward There Is no reason
in this case to make Any row If the thing
is managed quietly and firmly with little
common sense. I1.,szII'
Advised Him to Have Good Talk
With Her.
Three days later the bishop again wrote
my Dear Irvine saying:
Mrs. Elliott writes me that she was d-
vorced from her late husband on account
of his misconduct. If this is the case, as I
have written her, of course she is not under
our canon excommunicate. II you could go
and see Mrs Elliott and have good talk
with her 1t is possible you could make her
your friend and stop opposition She says
you never go near her now and are trying
to injure her and threatening to arrest her.
OF course. / make all allowances for her
exaggeration. l hope your trouble is calm
ing down. See Smith and fix him. You can
do IL -
Here Is letter dated February II, 1899,
six days after the foregoing:
MY Dear Mrs. Elliott: A week ago l
wrote DIR. Irvine requesting him to leave
Huntingdon. AS to your accommodation.
if he says l communicated you 1t is not
true. He stated to me by hypothetical case.
not mentioning any names and stating 1t
not your case stands, and I gave my
Judgment in that case He had no right on
the strength of my letter 10 say that 1 had
communicated you. 1t Is his duty when
accommodating a person to report the
case to me at once, and this he has not
done. This shows that it amounts to moth
ing. You need not worry about DR.. Irvine
action. as evidently he has done what he
has out OF spite. With every good wish, I
am ETHELBERT TALBOT"
Next Advised Irvine to Leave.
Following is the letter the bishop re-