SINGULAR COINCIDENCES.
Extraordinary coincidences have been chronicled in connection with
almost every situation in life, some fortunate and attended with profit
to those involved, others unfortunate or disastrous; and the Post-office
is no exception to the rule as being a field for the observation of such
occurrences. The peculiar nature of the coincidences to be observed in
the following examples may be worthy of note, or at any rate the cases
may repay their perusal with some small degree of interest:--
"Among the workmen employed in some alterations at a nobleman's country
seat were two bearing exactly the same Christian name and surname, but
unconnected and unacquainted with each other, one being a joiner, the
other a mason. The joiner, who was a depositor in the Post-office
Savings' Bank, having received no acknowledgment of a deposit of L3,
obtained a duplicate. The mason, who was not a depositor, became insane
and was removed to a lunatic asylum about the same time; and the
original acknowledgment, intended for the joiner, having fallen into the
hands of the mason's mother, she concluded that the account was his, and
made a claim for the money towards defraying the expenses of his
maintenance, and was with difficulty undeceived."
A registered packet containing a valuable gold seal was sent to a firm
of fancy stationers in Newcastle-on-Tyne, and delivered at its address
in due course. Complaint was shortly afterwards made, however, that the
young person who opened the packet found the seal was not enclosed, and
inquiries were at once set on foot in the Post-office to discover how
and where it could have been abstracted. A week or two after, and while
these inquiries were still proceeding, the firm in question reported
that a tradesman in town had presented to them the identical seal, with
the view of ascertaining its value! This information served as a clue to
the elucidation of the matter, and the loss of the seal was shown to
have occurred in the following fashion:--In the process of opening the
packet, the young person concerned had carelessly allowed the seal to
fall, unobserved by her; it got mixed up with waste-paper, which formed
part of some waste shortly thereafter removed to the premises of a
marine-store dealer, where it underwent a course of sortation. An old
woman engaged in this work found the seal, appropriated it, and without
more ado pawned it. The person with whom it was pledged was he who
presented it at the address where it had dropped from the letter. The
coincidence is not only a curious one, but the case illustrates how, but
for the coincidence, the blame of the loss would have rested on the
Post-office.
A traveller in the north of Europe became sadly puzzled with letters
which followed him about, although not intended for him, and the
difficulties in his case are described in a letter written by him, of
which the following is a transcript:--
"I am sorry you have had so much trouble respecting the registered
letter supposed to have been lost in transmission from my wife to me in
----. But I assure you the letter was most carefully and punctually
delivered, not having been even a post behind its due time, and I think
your case can hardly have referred to me at all. There was another Rev.
J---- D---- (the same name) travelling in Norway at the same time, whose
letters kept crossing my path everywhere; and when I read them, I was
almost in doubt whether I was myself or him, for his wife had the same
name as mine, and his baby the same name as mine, and just the same age;
but who he can be I cannot make out, only he is not I. Perhaps the
registered letter which has given you such trouble may have been for
him. It may satisfy you, however, to know that mine was all right."
The following incident occurred about twenty years ago. A gentleman of
the uncommon name of Onions was travelling in Scotland, and was expected
by his friends to call at a certain post-office for letters on a
particular day. The day prior to this, a telegram reached this
post-office from his home in the south of England, requesting that he
might be told to return at once, owing to the serious illness of his
brother. The telegram upon its receipt was duly placed in the proper box
by the clerk in charge of the _poste restante_ at the time, and who of
course, the telegram being open, was aware of its contents. Next day,
when the same clerk was upon duty, a Mr Onions presented himself, asking
for letters; but the clerk, on going to the box to get the aforesaid
telegram, was unable to find it, nor could any one in the office at the
time say anything about it. Mr Onions was, however, informed of its
import, whereupon he said he had no brother, but as his father had been
ailing when he left, he supposed a mistake of "brother" for "father" had
been made in transmission, and that the message was no doubt intended
for him. He then left the office. A few days later the postmaster
received a letter from this gentleman, then in the south of England,
stating that he had been made the victim of a cruel hoax (he having
found on reaching home that no telegram had been sent to him), and he
was the more convinced of this because his visit to Scotland was in
pursuance of his honeymoon.
The matter being investigated, it transpired that on the morning of the
day on which Mr Onions called for letters, another Mr Onions, for whom
the message was meant, had called and received the telegram from a clerk
who shortly thereafter went off duty. The confusion had thus arisen
through two persons of the same uncommon name calling at the same
post-office on the same day for letters, and, as it happened, applying
for their letters at hours when two different clerks were in attendance.
In the following case the names are fictitious, but in their similarity
they will adequately illustrate the narrative:--
The sudden expansion of telegraph business upon the transfer of the
telegraphs to the State in 1870, necessitated the employment of a large
number of inexperienced operators, and some awkward blunders were the
consequence. In the year mentioned, a Liverpool man named Parlane went
to London; but before parting with his wife, it was arranged that on a
certain day he would telegraph whether she should join him in London or
he would return to Liverpool. On the appointed day the promised telegram
was sent asking his wife to come to London, the message being directed
(we shall say) to Mrs Parlane, 24 Menzies Street, Toxteth Park,
Liverpool. By some accidental failure of current, or imperfect
signalling the word "Menzies"[7] reached Liverpool as "Meins,"[7] and
there being no Meins Street in Liverpool, the messenger was directed to
take the message for trial to Main Street, for which it was thought it
might be intended. The messenger found at 24 Main Street[7] a Mrs
M'Farlane, and to this person the message was presented. The names being
similar, Mrs M'Farlane opened the telegram, and her husband also being
in London, she had no doubt whatever that the command which it contained
to repair to London, though altogether unexpected, was intended for
herself. That evening she accordingly started for the metropolis.
[7] The names are given from memory.
Meanwhile Mrs Parlane had been suffering intense anxiety at not
receiving the promised telegram, and being unable longer to endure the
suspense in which she found herself, she likewise started for London the
same evening. Strange as it may appear, both Mrs Parlane and Mrs
M'Farlane travelled to London not only by the same train, but in the
same compartment; and it was by a comparison of notes that the telegram
intended for the one was discovered to have got into the hands of the
other. The string of coincidences in this matter is exceedingly
singular--viz., that two persons of similar names should reside at the
same number in neighbouring streets; that the husbands of both should be
in London at the same time; that the two wives should travel to London
in the same train; and that they should find themselves companions in
the same compartment.
Identity in names and addresses in all particulars sometimes gives rise
to trouble and inconvenience. Through the misdelivery of a savings-bank
acknowledgment, it was brought to light that in a suburban district of
London, where there were two terraces bearing exactly the same
designation, there were residing, at the same number in each, two
persons having, not only the same surname, but the same Christian name.
But even more curious are the following facts in the matter of similar
names and addresses, though in this instance nothing of ill-consequence
has yet arisen beyond the occasional misdelivery of a letter. In
Edinburgh at the present time (1885), there resides at 5 St Andrew's
Terrace a Mr James Gibson, and, immediately opposite, at 5 St Andrew's
Place, another Mr James Gibson. It happens, also, that a Mr John Gibson
is to be found at 5 St Andrew Square. Hence we have this very singular
series of almost identical addresses, the persons concerned being all
different, and, so far as we are aware, unacquainted with each other:--
(1) Mr J. Gibson,
5 St Andrew's Terrace.
(2) Mr J. Gibson,
5 St Andrew's Place.
(3) Mr J. Gibson,
5 St Andrew Square.
In consequence of the misdelivery of a post-packet, the following case
of almost identical addresses in two different towns was brought under
notice:--
Mr Andrew Thom,
Boot Maker,
8 South Bridge Street,
Airdrie.
And
Mr Andrew Thom,
Boot Top Manufacturer,
86 South Bridge,
Edinburgh.
Not very long ago, two letters directed to Mrs R---- at her residence in
Edinburgh were duly delivered there; but as the lady was at the time
living at the Grand Hotel in London, they were placed under a fresh
cover by one of her family and forwarded thither. Some days thereafter
the Postmaster of Glasgow received a communication from a Mrs R---- (the
same name), residing at the Grand Hotel, expressing great astonishment
that the two letters, which she now returned, had been sent to her,
since her permanent address was not in Edinburgh, but Glasgow. The
matter was afterwards explained, on the fact becoming known that two
ladies of the same name, one hailing from Glasgow, the other from
Edinburgh, had been living at the same time in the same hotel, and that
the waiter had delivered the letters to the wrong person.