[BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 149 
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING TEST. 
Of the 26 cases of legitimate discrepancy subjected to an attempt 
at reasonable harmonization apart from a knowledge of the attendant 
circumstances, it will be found that Cases 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 
20, 21, and 23, or in all 12 cases, seemed impossible to harmonize; 
while in Cases 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 22, 24, 25, and 26, or in all 
14 cases, a reasonable harmonization seemed possible, but this har- 
monization was in every instance contrary to the facts. 
EFFECT oF UNFIXED SEQUENCE OF DISCREPANT STATEMENTS. 
In the 26 cases of discrepancy, as heretofore stated, the sequence 
of the respective statements in each case was fixed for the purposes 
of the test. Where discrepant statements occur in records this sequence, 
however, will not necessarily be found fixed. Consequently it is of 
interest to notice what effect, if any, will follow if an unfixed, instead 
of a fixed, sequence of statements be assumed in the foregoing test. 
Two changes, neither of them important in the general result, will 
ensue from this less efficient and, therefore, less valuable, test. 
(1). In Cases 16 and 26 erroneous harmonizations will be replaced 
by slightly different, but equally erroneous, harmonizations, as follows: 
Case 16.—Instead of D succeeding C as Inspector, the harmoniza- 
tion would be that either D succeeded C or C succeeded D. 
Case 26.—The order of statements concerning the cost of the farm 
would be altered from $4,000, $5,000, $4500 and nothing to $4,000, 
$4,500 and $5,000, and the location, with respect to the other statements, 
of the statement that the farm cost B nothing, would have to be left 
an open question. The harmonization that B, in the course of the 
six months, successively bought $1,000 worth of additional land and 
re-sold $500 worth of land, and spent nothing on buildings, would be 
replaced by the harmonization that the successive increases from $4,000 
to $4,500 and to $5,000 were due to expenditure either on buildings 
or on the purchase of additional land, according as to whether B’s 
statement that the farm cost him nothing occurred before or after such 
increases respectively. 
(2). In Cases 2, 8, 18, 19 and 21, a reasonable harmonization, 
instead of seeming impossible, will become possible, but these harmon- 
izations are also in every case contrary to the facts:— 
Case 2.—The sequence of B’s statements concerning the cost of 
his property, fixed in the previous test at $10,000, $5,000, $25,000, 
