154 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
in a contrary report to another, belong really to both transactions; or the 
coincident features are so absorbed into the non-coincident as to cause 
conflicting reports. 
Case 1.—In this case two distinct transactions coincide exactly. 
Both the farmer and the drover purchased the farm at the auction, 
the drover by the act of public bidding and the farmer by the private 
arrangement with the drover. The auctioneer, in stating that the 
drover was the buyer, treats the coincident feature, i. e., the act of 
public bidding, as belonging solely to the drover’s act of purchasing; 
the farmer, in stating that he is the buyer, treats the coincident feature 
as belonging solely to the act of purchase by private arrangement. 
Case 13.—In this case the two transactions coincide in part. The 
going to Toronto ended where the leaving of Toronto began. Exactly 
at this point of coincidence B met M, and this coincident feature is 
ascribed in the one report to the second transaction, 7. e., to the leaving 
of Toronto, while in the contrary report this coincident feature is 
ascribed to the first transaction, 7. e., to the going to Toronto. | 
Case 14.—In this case three different transactions coincide in part, 
and the coincident features are so absorbed into the non-coincident as 
to cause conflicting reports. In the counting of the exceptions from 
the sex division by B, C and D respectively, there are three distinct 
observations, B with the exclusion of herself, C with the exclusion of 
himself, and D with the inclusion of both B and C; and the coincident 
parts of the various counts are so mingled with the non-coincident 
parts that the result is a double discrepancy. 
CATEGORY IV—Apparent Identity. 
Where two reports apparently but not really involve the same fact. 
This category is exemplified by Cases 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. 
In each of these cases the discrepancy occurs because there seems to be 
a relation between the discrepant statements, although in reality there 
is none. Thus in Case 15 B states that he has paid for the Smith place 
$1,500 and a year later he states that the place has cost him $2,500. 
The second figure seems to include the original payment of $1,500, but 
in reality it refers only to intervening expenditure on buildings and 
the purchase of an adjoining garden. In Case 16 B states successively 
that he has received letters from C and D, to each of whom he refers as 
the Inspector of Public Schools of the County of Waterloo. D seems 
to hold the same office formerly held by C, but in reality D’s office is 
distinct from C’s, although both offices are the same in name and in 
rank. In Case 17 B’s first statement signifies that he has sold a farm 
