The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1898-01-25
a PECULIAR CASE.

WuO nave uOt ISCelNeu lelNSiS du-
dressed to them, when they were
due, aud the Post Office has openly
been charged with tampering with
the mail
Yesterday, man accused OF letter
tealing was tried in the District
Court aud discharged, the Magis.
trate holding that there was not suf-
6cient evidence to convict The
case will be of general interest to
the letter-expecting aud letter writ
ing public who respond to names
not unusual in an Euglish-speaking
community.
Mr., James E Thompson, re-
spectacle gentleman who has re-
sided here for some time, expected
at Christmas time letter from his
wife, who is in San Francisco, and
was at the time in delicate health.
MIR. Thompson was naturally very
anxious o hear from his wife, aud
was very disappointed, when calling
at the Post Office, to be told that
there was no letter for him. He
called again aud again, but no letter
could be found. Finally be learned
that man named James II. Thomp-
sou had received the letter at the
Post Office "by mistake" and had
read it, although knowing that it
was not addressed to him, had re-
tanned possession OF it, aud had had
the impudence to answer it. BY
recent mail Mr.. James e. Thomp.
son received letter from his wife
in " which she stated that he must
have received letter from her by
Christmas, aud enclosing the letter
which she had received from James
H. Thompson, in which he actually
had the audaciIy to ask her for
her photograph.
Mr.. James E. Thompson was
naturally in very pleasant frame
OF mind when he received that IN
formation, aud as luck would have
it, he met the other Thompson ON
Fort street. Words followed by
blows were the natural result OF the
meeting and one of Marshal Browns
"foinest" arrested the two men for
affray.
The case was tried in the District
Court, General Hsrtwell appearing
for James FL Thompson, and Mr.. A.
Rosa for Mr.. James E. Thompson.
Both men were found guilty OF af-
fray and iued.
James Il. Thompson was then ar
rested for violating Sec 6 Chap. II
Of the Penal Code, which reads:
"Taking and OBTAINING, secretipg
and destroying any letter" belong
ing to another person.
The evidence showed that the
man did receive the letter addressed
to the complainant from the Post
Office, that he did open it. read it
aud instead of returning it marked
"opened by mistake" he kept it and
responded to it in letter to Mrs.
James E. Thompson.
The handwriting on the letters
addressed to James E. Thompson
from his wife is peculiarly distinct
and elegant, and there was absolute
ly no excuse for the mistake" OF the
other Thompson, especially as he
has no wife or baby in San Fran
cisco, and could not expect any
letter from such non-existing beings.
The magistrate, however, dis,
charged the man with severe lee.
ture TO he more careful in the ful ure
with other peoples mail. We do
not wish to criticize the decision Of
our wise magistrate, but we are " H.
ing to gamble on it, that 10 San Fran
cisco and elsewhere Mr.. James FL.
Thompson would have got it where
the chicken got the axe.
People who are disappointed when
expected letters do not materialize
had better watch the other fell VS.
with thu same names in the future.
Tne P. o. may also use a little mt re