A Postoffice Incident

A recent SMÜftll al the Lawi'euoe postónico illnstwites the, ease with which, l'roin want of ijarticularity in direction, a valuable letter mfiy misearry, urith no lack of care on the part of tlic ofiicc, and no less exliibits moral obliquity iu some members of the community. On Saturday niglit a persou called for a letter at the general delivery, and on beiiig told there was none to his address stated thnt one of our city clergymen had deposited for liim, n few days iroviously, a letter oontaining 2.50 in ensh. Upon fnrthet iaquiry of the sender it appeared that the lottor boro no atreetdesiguation, only the mau's name, and of the latter six different men were kuown at the office and by the cairier. Fortunatcly, om of the lattor romembereil rccently delivering a drop-letter to one of the six. The letter had not been returned to the office, though the recipiënt must have knowfl full well tliat the money wns not iutondcd for him. The carrier called upon him and askcd the return of the letter. He was refnsed, the holder cluiniiug that it coutained ho money, nnd, beside, Iiow did the carrier Know it was not for him? His persistent refusal waa followeil by onlling iu a pólice officor, and only trom visionn of the stution liouse was the follow induced to return the money be bpd wrongi'ully appropriatetl, aml. an nemr ÖMrwatd it was hauded to the rightful owner of the same name. The thief - for ho was no loss than one - may think himself iortiuiate in escatnng proseeution under the United