[BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 145 
the chance of such public solicitation as judged by his past experience, 
answered, “Oh, I have never been tagged in my life.” 
CasE 19. 
The Discrepancy.—B states (1) that C is his wife; and (2) that he 
was never married. 
Harmonization.—Impossible. 
The Circumstances.—This case rests on the laxity in Scots law 
which permits the marriage of two persons by mutual acknowledgment 
of one another as husband and wife or by openly living together, with 
the reputation among friends and neighbors of being husband and wife, 
but without a marriage ceremony.! B’s first statement was in reply 
to the question whether he was married; and the second to an inquiry 
_as to where and by whom he was married, the reply in this case having 
reference solely to the fact that there was no regular ceremony of the 
marriage by a clergyman. 
CasE 20. 
The Discrepancy.—B stated concerning a religious service (1) that 
there was a congregation of several hundred; and (2) that there were 
only two men on the left side of the church and one woman on the right. 
Harmonization.—According to the ordinary, 1. e., the most probable 
interpretation, B’s second statement would limit the congregation 
to four (including himself), a number impossible to harmonize with the 
first statement. 
The Circumstances.—This case is another type of discrepancy aris- 
ing from the sex division described in Case 3. B’s first statement was 
made to one who inquired concerning the total attendance at the 
service, and the second in reply to an inquiry concerning the exceptions 
from the customary arrangement of the sexes. 
1See in Chambers’ Encyclopedia, Vol. VI (London and Edinburgh, 1864), 
p. 338, in article on “Marriage”: “It will be seen from the statement of these 
different modes of proof (7.é., of marriage) that it must necessarily be sometimes 
difficult to prove marriage in Scotland, especially as the fact depends not on any 
one specific form or act of the parties, but on a long course of conduct which ad- 
mits of endless variations, and the more variety, the more is the difficulty and 
expense of proof. Hence, it has often been said by strangers, that some persons 
in Scotland cannot tell whether they are married or not, and it requires an expensive 
and ruinous litigation to clear up that point, the most noted instance of which in 
modern times is the case of Yelverton v. Yelverton.” 
