But his honesty was only of a transient nature, for he could not keep the money out of his thoughts, and he soon began to think that he had been rather hasty in returning the letter, when, for aught he knew, he could have retained its contents with impunity. For was not the letter directed to Johnson Clark? And may not one take possession of a letter directed to himself?
This course of thought and these queries were followed by the determination to recover the letter, and appropriate the contents.
Clark accordingly went to the post master the next day, and stated that he had heard, the evening before, of the death of a relative who had been living at the West, and who had left him a small legacy, namely, the sum contained in the letter. On the strength of these representations, the post master gave him the document, without, so far as appears, making any attempt to verify his statement. The inheritor of legacies proceeded forthwith to the Bank in the village, and obtained the money on the draft, endorsing it, as is customary. It only required his own name to be written, and where was the harm? thought he.
A few days after this, the person who had written the letter came to Windsor, Vt., having been informed by his correspondent at Windsor, Ct., that it had not reached him; and thinking it possible that it might have gone astray.
On his arrival at the former place, he soon ascertained that the Vermont Dromio had taken possession of his letter.
This worthy found that the name of Johnson Clark was not a spell potent enough to protect him in the enjoyment of his unrighteous gain. He was sent to the State Prison for two years.
In this instance, the post master was clearly guilty of carelessness in allowing Clark to obtain the letter on the pretext that he offered. As there was a well known town in Connecticut of the name of Windsor, prudence would have required a closer examination of the address, after the letter was returned by Clark. And the story by which Clark imposed upon him, was sufficiently lame in some particulars to have called for a closer investigation of its truth. If the post master had requested to be allowed to read that part of the letter which referred to the pretended legacy, a refusal on the part of Clark to permit it, would of course have created a strong suspicion that he was playing a dishonest game, and would have justified the post master in withholding the letter until further proof could be obtained as to the identity of Johnson Clark with the one for whom the epistle was designed.
Cases similar to the above are not unfrequent; and in all such instances, those who rely on a name identical with that of some other person, as a shield for attempted dishonesty, have found their defence fail them in the hour of need.
The matter seems too plain to need elucidation; yet not a few persons, equally compounded of folly and knavery, have actually supposed that the possession of a name like that of another man, would enable them to keep on the shady side of the law in making free with his purse also.