Untitled

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 8, Issue 409, 6 September 1866, Page 3

Typographical Errors. —A friend in San Francisco writes:—An article in your January number concerning typographical errors and misprints, reminds me of a certain phase of my literary experience which may interest your readers. It was my fortune once to be installed in the editorial sanctum of a country newspaper during the absence of its regular editor. Our typographical force was small and of local origin. One day I was called upon to write the obituary of the belle of an adjacent town, who had died deeply lamented by the social circle of which she was the life and beauty. I wrote what I conceived to be an affecting and pious tribute; among other things detailed the circumstances of her last ill-ness,-and dwelt tenderly upon her dying injunction that no formal monument should be placed above her grave, but a plain slab with the simple inscription : “ Mary.” On reading the proof of my article, however, I became doubtful of her Christian name, and hurriedly ran my pencil through it as a preliminary to correction. One of the townsfolk dropping in at that moment assured me that the young girl’s name was “ Mary,” and I accordingly dotted a line below the erased word, writing in the margin of the proof, the usual direction “ Stet ” (let it stand). My sagacious foreman seldom gave mo revises, but assured me in this instance the proof was duly corrected. I was somewhat astonished the next morning on learning from the paper that the dying girl had requested, as a last favor, that upon her tombstone should be placed “ the simple inscription, ‘ Stet!’ ” It availed me nothing that I endeavoured to explain to the tearful but indignant parents that the mistake, after all, was not so very bad. Many of the people believed that I had actually attempted to improve the poor girl’s dying injunction with my “ college lingo.” I was never asked to write another, but when the next decease occurred in Slmngullion an obituary suitably prepared was sent to me for publication by a disconsolate widower, I handed it over to the printer without comment or correction. On looking over the proof, however, I perceived that the lady was spoken of as having been remarkable for her chastity. As this was evidently intended to be “ charity,” and hot a malicious slur on the fair fame of the rest of the village, I underlined tho obnoxious word, made an interrogation point in the margin, and sent the proof to the bereaved husband, with the request that he should return it directly to the printer after making his corrections. Other engagements kept me away from the office until after the Slumgullion Independent had gone to press. The next morning a zealous friend called upon me at a early hour, and imparted the pleasing information that the bereaved husband was, in the local dialect, “ hunting” me. “ You see,” added my sympathizing friend, “ the old fool can’t take a joke, and he swears he’ll have your life.” “But 1 haven’t joked with him!” I began, ia amazement. “You don’t mean to say tuat you meant that for good ? ” said my friend, with some concern depicted on his face. “ Meant what F For goodness’ sake what do you mean ? ” “ Why, that joka-on Foilinsbee’s wife! You see,” he continued, confidentially, “ the innocent old ass thought everything of old Sake FoUinsbee, and that air dig of yours in the paper rather got him. It was pretty rough on tiuke too, but it was very good! He! he 1” I snaiched the paper from his hand and ran my eye rapidly over the obituary. It had never been corrected. But as it went on to recount the virtues of the deceased, it seemed that tho ingenious printer had seen fit to interpolate my query as an editorial doubt of one of the qualities of the esteemed Mrs FoUinsbee, and she was spoken of as having been “remarkable for her chastity ?” —“Editor’s Drawer,” is Harper’s Now Monthly Magazine. I