[BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 153 
Jacob remained behind alone; and by the juxtaposition the discrepancy 
suggested by the writer in the above Dictionary is excluded. 
An interesting illustration of this principle of juxtaposition occurs 
in Ezekiel 44:22—“ Neither shall they (1. e., the priests) take for their 
wives a widow, nor her that is put away; but they shall take virgins of 
the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that is the widow of a priest.” 
Evidently the sense is that priests may not marry widows except those 
of priests; but by the interposition of other statements between the 
general statement and the exception, there springs up a shade of discre- 
pancy which would become complete if the general and exceptional 
statements occurred in different books or at a greater distance from 
each other in the same book. 
CATEGORY I1—Reopened Transactions. 
Where a transaction or situation is closed and warrants a certain 
report, but is re-opened by subsequent developments which warrant another 
and different report. 
Case 4.—When B purchased his villa for $4,000 he was warranted 
in stating that it had cost him that amount; but a year later, as a 
result of intervening developments which involved the expenditure of 
$2,000 on the buildings and on the purchase of an adjoining garden, 
he was equally warranted in naming as the cost of the villa $6,000. 
Case 9.—The journey of the Fusiliers from Windsor to Waterloo 
was by stages, at any one of which up to Dover the statement that 
they went to the battle wearing the queue was warranted; but by the 
developments at Dover another statement was not only warranted but 
necessary in the subsequent stages. 
Case 10.—Between the production of the letter and the minute 
book a new secretary was appointed by the society, and by this develop- 
ment the second and different statement by the notary public in the 
same certificate was not only warranted but necessary. 
Case 11.—The Duke’s subsequent addition of £1,000 to the £1,000 
paid for the farm by the Duke’s agent warrants the Duke’s statement 
that he paid for the farm £2,000; and before this development the farmer 
and agent were equally justified in naming as the price £1,000. 
CATEGORY III—Coincident Transactions. 
Where two or more transactions coincide wholly or in part, and co- 
incident features, which in one report are ascribed to one transaction and 
