[BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 157 
The Mixed Cases: 2, 12, 25 and 26. 
Case 2.—By the removal of the old store and the erection of the 
new block, the original transaction was subsequently developed, and 
the merchant’s varying statements concerning the cost of his property 
are due in part to the principle of Reopened Transactions. The principal 
source of the discrepancies in this case are, however, the differences of 
interest in the various inquirers. 
Case 12.—In the second statement, that C, the Duke’s agent, had 
purchased the farm, the principle of Coincident Transactions is active. 
In the purchase by the agent, two transactions, exactly coincident, occur; 
the agent makes the purchase, but the Duke also makes the purchase, 
and either of them may be set down as purchaser, if the interest of 
the inquirer requires no distinction between the two. For the rest, 
this case belongs, with Case 11, to the category of Reopened Trans- 
actions. 
Case 25.—B’s statement, that she takes nothing warm for supper, 
is made from the standpoint of her general practice; and the statement 
of C, that a fire for her supper is still burning, is made from the stand- 
point of occasional exceptions to that practice. The discrepancy 
belongs, therefore, to the category of Whole and Part or Rule and 
Exception. The principle of Difference of Interest, however, enters also 
into the discrepancy. The interest of M, which occasioned the first 
statement, was lest B should be deprived of a warm supper. The 
interest of C, which occasioned the second statement, was to induce 
B, by way of exception to her custom, to take a warm supper. 
Case 26.—By the burning of the granary and the sale of the timber 
the original situation was so developed as to warrant the subsequent 
statements that the farm, for which he paid $4,000, cost him $5,000 
and $4,500. In these statements the active principle is that of Re- 
opened Transactions. The fourth statement, that the farm cost B 
nothing, seems to refer to expenditures made on the farm after the 
original purchase, but in reality it signifies that the farm was sold at 
a price which enabled B to avoid loss on his original purchase; hence 
this statement belongs to the category of Apparent Identity. 
In the mixed cases it will be noticed that the mixture may arise 
elther by the principles of several categories acting jointly in the same 
statements, as in Cases 2 and 25; or, as in Cases 12 and 26, a statement 
which belongs only to one category may be joined with a statement 
or statements which belong to another category, and in such cases the 
mixture of categories is more external and incidental, while in the 
former cases the mixture is internal and essential. 
