140 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
CASE 6. 
The Discrepancy.—(1) B stated that he accompanied C and D to 
a certain point. (2) C stated that B accompanied D to the point and 
C went thither alone. 
Harmonization.—Impossible. 
The Circumstances.—C and D were two ladies intending to take 
a train at the point in question. C had a valise and D none. It was 
necessary for C, before taking the train, to call at an intervening point 
which would take her considerably out of the direct way. The time 
for the purpose being somewhat short, B, carrying C’s valise, accom- 
panied D to the train by the direct route and when C arrived by the 
indirect, he placed both the ladies upon the train. 
Case 7. 
The Discrepancy.—B, a young lady in a neighborhood where the 
country was in a disturbed state, drove one morning with her brother 
to spend the day with relatives some six miles away, and returned late 
at night. (1) The following morning at breakfast she reports that her 
brother remained with her relatives and that she alone came back with 
another lady, C. (2) D, a guest of B’s parents, states that from his 
bed-room window the previous night he saw the returning carriage drive 
up to the door of the hall, and from it B alighted with a gentleman who 
was not her brother. | 
Harmonization.—That on account of the disturbed state of the 
country, the lady who accompanied B, had masqueraded as a man. 
The Circumstances.—The lady C who accompanied B was the wife 
of the family doctor. His house was near the gate of the park, and 
when his wife al'ghted he took her place in the carriage and drove with 
B to the hall door.! 
! This case is from the experience of Sir Robert Anderson, formerly Assistant 
Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police and Head of the Criminal 
Investigation Department, Scotland Yard, as given in his work “The Bible 
and Modern Criticism” (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1902), pp. 221-223. 
Sir Robert considers that the discrepant statements, apart from a know- 
ledge of the attendant circumstances, must be considered irreconcilable. 
The author, in suggesting a harmonization, wishes not te controvert the 
opinion of this officer, but merely to omit in no case a reasonable har- 
monization, if such be in any wise possible. The inherent probability in 
the above harmonization is not great and it is further lessened by the 
fact that the incident occurred in Ireland. Even in such disturbed areas and 
periods as the Counties of Carlow, Wicklow and Wexford in the Rebellion of 1798, 
