the trustees were leaving it unlet, for the purpose of enjoying the income themselves. This being so, there was not a single man acquainted with the circumstances, who did not expect that I should recover compensation from them, as soon as I came to man's estate. Among others who continued to hold this opinion, were Timocrates and Onetor; of which I can give you the strongest proof. The defendant, seeing that Aphobus, besides his own patrimony, held mine also (not a small one) in his possession, was desirous of giving him his sister in marriage; but he was too wary to part with her portion; for he looked on the estate of a guardian as a sort of security for the ward. Accordingly he gave him his sister, but the portion it was arranged should remain in the.hands of Timocrates, her former husband, who was to pay interest thereon at ten per cent. so long as he retained it. Afterwards, when I had obtained judgment in the suit against Aphobus for breach of trust, and he still refused to make me any satisfaction, Onetor, far from endeavouring to bring us to terms, pretended that his sister had been divorced, and that he had paid her portion and could not get it back, (although at that very moment it was unpaid and at his own disposal,) and then, saying he had taken a mortgage of the land, was hardy enough to expel me from it. Such contempt did he feel for me, and for you, and for the laws of his country. This, men of the jury, is the ground of the present action, and these are the facts upon which you will have to pronounce your verdict. I will first call before you Timocrates himself, who will state, that he agreed to remain a debtor for the lady's portion, and continued to pay interest upon it to Aphobus according to the agreement; then I will call witnesses to prove, that Aphobus himself confessed he received the interest from Timocrates. Take the depositions. [The Depositions.] It is admitted, you see, that the portion was not actually paid to Aphobus in the first instance. And it is highly probable that, for the very reasons I have mentioned, they chose to defer the payment, rather than mix it up with the estate of Aphobus, over which so serious a liability impended. They cannot say it was poverty that prevented their making an immediate transfer; for Timocrates has an estate of more than ten talents, and Onetor above thirty; this then could not have been the cause. Nor can they allege, that they had valuable property, but no ready money; or that the lady was a widow, and therefore they hurried on the marriage without paying her portion at once. For, in the first place, these men lend a great deal of money to other people; and secondly, the lady was not a widow, but was living with Timocrates, and removed from his house, when they gave her away to Aphobus; so that this excuse cannot be admitted any more than the others. And I think, men of the jury, you will all agree upon this point; that any man, contracting such an alliance, would rather borrow of another, than not pay his sister's portion to her husband. For, in the latter case, he is esteemed as a debtor who is not certain to perform his engagements; whereas, if he gives away the lady and her money together, he becomes indeed a brother-in-law and a friend; he has then acted an honourable part, and is not looked upon with mistrust. This being so, as they were not compelled by any of the causes just mentioned, and could not have desired, to leave this debt outstanding, it is impossible to suggest any other excuse for the nonpayment; it must have been, that they would not trust Aphobus with the money for the reason that I say. These points I establish beyond all dispute. And I think I shall easily show from the facts themselves, that they never paid in the sequel; and you will see that, even if they retained the money not with the view that I suggest, but with the intention of speedy payment, they would never actually have paid or parted with it; so urgent were the necessities of the case. Two years elapsed between the marriage and their declaration of the divorce. The marriage took place in the archonship of Polyzelus, in the month of Scirophorion; the divorce was registered in the month of Poseidon, in the archonship of Timocrates. Immediately after the marriage I came to man's estate, made my complaint, and demanded an account; and, finding myself plundered of all my property, I commenced my action in the last mentioned year. Now, that in this short interval the debt continued according to the terms agreed on, is not unlikely; but, that it was paid, is incredible. Do you think that a man, who originally preferred to remain in debt and to pay interest for his sister's fortune, in order that it might not be risked with the husband's property, would have paid it over when the suit against the husband had begun? Surely, men of the jury, you cannot suppose it possible. Why, even if he had trusted him with the money in the first instance, he would have sought to recover it then. То prove that the lady married at the time I mention, that the dispute between Aphobus and myself had commenced in the interval, and that, after I had brought my action, these men registered the divorce with the Archon; take these depositions as to each particular: [The Depositions.] After this archon comes Cephisodorus; then Chion. During their years (being of full age) I continued to press my claim; and I commenced my action in the archonship of Timocrates. Take this deposition. Now read this. [The Deposition.] [The Deposition.] It is thus clear from the evidence, they have taken these bold measures, never having paid the portion, for the purpose of preserving to Aphobus his estate. For when in so short a period of time they say they owed the money, they paid it, they could not get it back, the lady separated from her husband, and they became mortgagees of the land; how can one avoid seeing, that they are acting in collusion, to deprive me of the fruits of your verdict? I now proceed to show you from the answers of the defendant himself, and also from those of Timocrates and Aphobus, that it is impossible for the portion to have been paid. I put questions, men of the jury, to each of these men before many witnesses. I asked Onetor and Timocrates, if any persons were present when they paid the marriage portion; Aphobus I asked, whether any were present when he received it. They severally answered, that no witness was present, but that Aphobus got it by instalments in such sums as he desired from time to time. Now can any one of you believe, (the portion being a talent,) that Onetor and Timocrates put so large a sum into the hands of Aphobus without witnesses? Aphobus! in paying whom-I won't say in this manner, but even in presence of a multitude-one would take every precaution, so as (in case of dispute) to be able to recover one's rights before you. In a transaction of such importance no man would have taken steps without a witness, whomsoever he had to deal with, much less with such a person as Aphobus. It is for this reason we hold marriage feasts, and invite our most intimate friends; because the affair is one of moment; we are giving to the charge of others the happiness of our sisters and daughters, for whom we are most anxious to make safe provision. It stands to reason therefore, that, if the defendant really paid over the portion to Aphobus, he settled with him in the presence of the same persons, before whom he agreed to become a debtor and pay interest. For, by so doing, he was discharged from the whole demand; whereas, by paying him when no one was by, he left the persons, who witnessed the agreement, to be witnesses against him of the continuance of the debt. The matter stood thus. They could not persuade their friends (more honest than themselves) to swear to their having paid the money. They thought, if they produced other witnesses (not relations), you would disbelieve them. They knew again, if they said the payment was made all at once, we should demand for examination the slaves who brought the money; and in that case, if they declined to give them up, (as they certainly would if the payment was never made,) their fraud would have been detected. On the other hand, by saying they paid without a witness, and by instalments, they hoped to escape detection. Thus were they reduced to invent the present story. And by such tricks and artifices they imagine that, passing for simple-hearted persons, they can easily deceive you; the truth being, that in matters affecting their interest, (so far from simplicity,) they would not do the most trifling act without all the caution of men of business. Take and read the depositions of the persons, before whom they gave their answers. [The Depositions.] Now, men of the jury, I will show to you, that the lady, though nominally separated, was really living with Aphobus. I think, if you are satisfied of this, you will feel more inclined to withdraw your confidence from my opponents, and to re dress my wrongs. Some of the facts I shall establish by direct testimony, others by circumstantial evidence of a convincing nature. When I saw, men of the jury, that after the registration before the Archon of this lady's divorce, and after Onetor had declared the farm to be mortgaged for her portion, Aphobus still occupied and cultivated the land, and dwelt with his wife, I was sure it was all a pretence to cover the real design. Wishing to satisfy you of this, I thought it right to convict him in the presence of witnesses, in case he denied the facts to be as I have stated. Accordingly I tendered him for the torture a slave, who was well acquainted with the circumstances; one who had belonged to Aphobus, and whom, Aphobus being in default,1 I had taken in execution. The defendant, as to his sister's living with Aphobus, declined the inquiry which I proposed; the other matter (Aphobus farming the land) was too notorious to be denied, so he confessed it. But there is further proof that Aphobus lived with his wife, and held the land, until just before the commencement of the action. It appears from the manner in which he dealt with the land after judgment. For, as though he had never mortgaged, and the property would belong to me as judgment creditor, he carried off every thing he could, all the produce and agricultural implements, except the casks; what he was unable to remove, he left behind of course; so that Onetor was at liberty to claim the bare land. Here's a pretty contrivance ! One says the farm was mortgaged to him, though the mortgagor was seen cultivating it; and pretends that his sister has been separated from her husband, when he is proved to have declined the test of inquiry upon this very point. The other, not living with his wife, (as the defendant says,) carries away all the produce and implements from the farm, while the guardian of the divorced lady, to secure whom he says the land is mortgaged, shows no resent 1 If the judgment debtor did not pay by the appointed day, he was said to be vπephμepos, and the adversary might himself levy execution. See Vol. iii. Appendix IX. p. 391. And see the fourth Appendix in this volume. κατὰ τὴν ὑπερημερίαν is rendered by Pabst wegen der nicht eingehaltenen Zahlungstermine." |