Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1878-07-06
A STRANGE CASE OF MISTAKEN
IDENTITY.

A STRANGE CASE OF MISTAKEN
IDENTITY.
From the Sacramento Record Union OF July 23I
We printed yesterday the particulars OF
q very remarkable case Of mistaken idcn-
tity. The story Of the claim made by the
widow Mason upon the estate OF the late
Supervisor John A. Mason, is one Of those
extraordinary narratives which justify the
adage that truth is stranger than fiction.
Had q novelist invented such tale it
would have been secuted by the critics as
unnatural and Incredible and indeed there
are points about the actual occurrences
which are we'll calculated to stagger the
strongest faith. The claimant in the case
was married to one John A. Mason, in New
York, in 1S4l. They went to Illinois, and
lived there until May, 1850. when he start
ed across the plains to California. She
heard from him occasionally after his ar
rival until 1854, when his letters ceased
and nothing more was learned concerning
him. His wife and family finally conclud-
cd that he WAS dead. Some vague rumors
to that effect reached them long subse-
quently. In 1878 or 1874, the sup
posed widow happened TO see a Sacra-
mento paper containing the business adj
vertisement OF John A. Mason. This CO.
her husband might yet be living, and she
caused letter to be written TO the address
given in the newspaper. An answer came
in due course, to the effect that the writer
was not her husband, but that If he heard
anything Of his namesake he would let her
know. The handwriting OF this letter, as
she testified did not appear to resemble
that of her husband and ii would seem
that at this point she was nearly convinced
of her mistake. In 1876, however, she
heard Of John A. Mason's death, and the
disease of which he died, and his age,
again revived the half-clouded impression.
She then came to Sacramento, saw Masons
photograph, and became persuaded that II
was not that Of her husband. Whether
the two men really did resemble ono an
o.her at all closely, il ia difficult to aseer-
tain, for ii is apparent that Mrs. Mason's
smembranco OF her husband was not
vivid by any means. Thus, she SEEMS to
have been uncertain as to the color of his
ewes. She did not know his middle name.
She was doubtful ON several other points
which cohabitation for ten years with u
man might be thought to have sufiiced to
fix in any woman's memory. Again, she
expressly says that she '.made allowances"
for the altering effects of time. but it is
clear that this could not be done with any
approach to precision, since it is quite i'm
possible to tell how q persons face will
change In twenty years, and all the allow
ances might be made in the wrong direc-
tion. The famous Tichborne case shows
what egregious mistakes may be made in
matters Of this kind, for the mother Of Sir
Roger Tichborne positively identified the
butcher, Arthur Orton, as her long lost
son, and several other persons were
equally convinced that the claimant
was the rightfui heir. II was shown, on
trial. that there was not the remotest like
ness between young Tichborne and the
obese impostor who represented him; but
the mother. like Mrs. Mason, had under
taken to make allowances for the changes
produced by time, and az consequence
she had argued herself out Of all rccollec-
ton Of what her son really looked like when
she saw him last. The real Tichborne had
been q slight, delicate yonth; lad Of such
habit as Alexander II. Stephens. The
claimant was about as gross as s.Judge (now
Senator) Davis, Of Illinois. To suppose
that any interval could have sufficed to
evolve the latter from the former requires
an enormous credulity, and also shows
how very untrustworthy estimates of this
kind are apt to be. In the local case il
seems probable that the condolences of
name and age; the fact that both the men
had come TO California; and the fact that
whereas her husband suffered from lung
disease, the Sacramento Mason died of
consumption, were most influential in per-
suading tho claiment Of the identity. The
evidence given leaves no room for doubt
that she was completely mistaken. For
the whole career of the John A. Mason who
died here has been traced, and it has been
shown to have been impossible that he
should have been the man who married
Catherine Eisenach at Buffalo, in 1871. 1t
cannot be said that there was at any stage
the least doubt as to the decision
devolving upon the Court. But there
are, nevertheless, abundant points Of
interest about the case. Had the
claimant been enabled TO see the real face
Of the Sacramento Mason it is probable
that she would have been convinced Of her
error. As it was, she had only a photo
graph to euide her, and under the circum-
stances ii is perhaps not very surprising
that she should have discovered resem-
blances which had no real existence. A
photograph is generally misleading. In
the frst place, its lack Of color completely
changes the appearance Of the face. The
blonde is changed into brunette the
color Of the eyes, tho shade of the skin,
the color OF the hair, are all masked. And
when an absence of twenty years from the
supposed original is added to these diff
culties, it Is not wonderful that such a
mistake, led up to by the preceding CO.
incidences of name, age, ETC., should have
occurred. As to the fate Of the Illinois
Mason, IL remains, and perhaps will con-
tinue, blank. He dropped out of sight
In 1854, and as he had always been loving
husband and a steady, industrious man,
the most rational presumption is that he
ceased TO correspond with his wife only
because he ceased to live. At that period
the death OF an unknown man would have
caused no inquiry and no comment.
Tragedies Of far more thrilling character
had been familiar to the restless adyen-
turers who peopled California. This man
had been miner, and had been prospect
ing in Tuolumne county. He may have
died In the hills, or in some obscure tavern
In one Of the short-lived mining towns.
The probabilities are very great that no
clue to his end will ever be discovered.
But il is evident that he was not the Sac
rsmento Mason. and that his widow had
really but the most insubstantial grounds
upon which 10 base her claims.