New-York tribune., 1879-09-17
FyCIJTyOTS NAMES.

The law Of the land long ago espOused the
maxim: A rose by any other name would smell
rs sweet" II Mr.. Rose prefers to be called Mr.
Tulip all he needs to 10 Is to call himself so and get
his acquaintance to do tho same. a mans name,
IN the view of the law, IS whatever be is usually
called. And SO is woinan5. Therefore the queer
post Office case which recently came be-
fore the authorities was doubtless rightly
decided. The facts were, that long time
aao a firm was formed IN NewYork, in
the name Of Allison & Iearn, to manufacture and
sci! patent medicine Allison was supposed to
dwell in Brooklyn, bnt ucarn did not know where,
and never visitcl him at homo the two men met
daily at the New-YOrk store, and all the
business was done there. The medicine
was popular and tho business successful.
Quite recently Icarn saw announcements of the
death of DR.. McAllister in Brooklyn and having
often heard OF him as physician of note, thought
lie would attend the funeral. He did so and gong
forward t. view the remains was amazed to
recognize the features OF his partner, Allison. Then
came explanations and controversy. Mrs. McAllis-
ter learning for The first time that her husband had
benin business under another name, IN New-York,
objected to any further proceedings of the sort.
Hearn claimed to wind up the business, and receive
money checks aud orders that might be in letters
on the way rs being the surviving partner There
sa law of Congress which authorizes the post Office
autboricsto refuse delivery of letters 70 persons
proved 10 be engaged In using the mails in aid Of0b
tainingmonoy by false proteDces. Under this law the
question has been argued before the department at
Washington, whether using the name Allison in
stead of McAllister was q false pretenco which made
il proper to detain the letters. No one found fault
with the medicine. complained of any frand in
the manner Of carrying on tho business aside from
the fictitious name and the Post Office authorities
have decided that this Is offence. and that Mr..
IIearn may have the letters.
To use two names Is not IN itself offence. II done
IN fraud or crime It is an important indica
tion of bad motive. For Innocent purposes per
son may pass by moro names than one without IN
curing blame from the law. Writers and
actors have done this much as to
make il n familiar custom, so far rs they
are concerned. They have no especial privilege.
and there Is no generally established rule that per-
SONS in other vocatons may not do the same, where
their objects are honest. The persons usual desg
natlon is his name and he NAV change II as he
pleases Conceang unlawful acts by an assumed
name is another thing. Using fictitious name
cannot be called unlawful. Tho principle Is well
established In respect to changing ones name.
There is prevalent idea that act of legislature
or order of court is necessary This is not 3d.
These are convenient for making the change
known ; for giving Il effect quickly and Tor pro-
tecting the person from any mputation Of conceal
ment or dishonest purpose But one may
make tho change himself if he will take
the time and pains. Women, when they
marry take their husbands names by mere
custom. They are not bound to do so; some
times they decline. Men take new names, if
they like by the simple process of signing and
answering to them.
There Is law of this State which. as II formerly
read, authorized the Court of Common Pleas to
order a mans name changed, If he gained any
pecuniary benefit thereby. A gentleman of unat-
tractive coQnomen applied for such an ORDER but
could not show that any legacy had been left him
or any other money advantage depending,
and the Court said it had not power to
mako any order. but mono was needed !;
the applicant could make the change himself A
strange case OF this kind occurred Ia Kansas Mrs.
Brown of Indiana, eloped from her husband with
Clark. and went To Kansas where the two lived
together as Mr. and Mrs. Clark. She was generally
supposed TO be his wife. and called herself and was
called Clark. In the name Of Sarah Clark she
brought suit, and the defendant objected that her
true name was Brown and she inust beQin over
again in that name. But the Court said that her
name was whatever she was usually called, and she
might sue as Mrs. Clark. There was lady en-
ployed In tue Patent Oaco who drew her pay In her