Is it possible to prove, in a clearer manner than I have done, the malice of this charge, the truth of the evidence against my opponent, and the justice of the verdict which condemned him? I have shown, that he refused to examine, as to the truth of the deposition, the very slave who wrote it down ; that his brother Æsius deposed to the very statement which he declares to be false; that Aphobus himself, when called by me as a witness against Demon, his uncle and cotrustee, gave the same testimony as the witnesses whom he sues; that he declined to examine my female servants as to the fact of Milyas being a freeman; that my mother was willing to make oath on the subject, with imprecations on her children; that I tendered for examination all the rest of my servants, who knew every circumstance of the case better than Milyas, and he rejected them all; that he has not sued for false testimony a single one of the witnesses who fixed him with the receipt of money; that he did not produce the will or let the estate, as the laws require; and lastly, that when, by swearing a solemn oath after myself and the witnesses, he might have procured a release to the extent of the sum as to which he required Milyas to be questioned, he did not think proper to swear it. I declare to heaven, I could not devise a surer method of proving my case, than the one I have adopted. And yet Aphobus, clear as it is that he calumniates the witnesses, and sustained no damage by their evidence, and lost the verdict justly, still puts a bold face on the matter. There would be less reason to wonder at the style of his present language, if he had not been condemned in the first instance by his own friends and by the arbitrator. For you must know that, after inducing me to refer the case to Archenaus and Dracontides and Phanus, (the last of whom is defendant in this action,) he revoked their authority, because he heard them say that, if they decided on oath, they should give their award against him; then he went before the official arbitrator, by whom, as he could make no answer to my claim, judgment was pronounced for me. From this he appealed to a jury; who, upon hearing the case, affirmed the decision of his friends and the arbitrator, and assessed the

1 He was not strictly a trustee, but, being the father of Demophon, he very likely took a part in the management of the trust, and therefore Demosthenes calls him so.

damages at ten talents. They gave their judgment, not on the ground that he had admitted Milyas to be a freeman, (for this was of no importance ;) but because, an estate of fifteen talents having been left to me, he would not grant a lease of it; and because he and his colleagues managed it for ten years, and he allowed me (then a child) to be assessed to the property tax at one-fifth of the whole value, the same rate at which Timotheus the son of Conon and men of the largest fortunes were assessed; and, after so long managing a property, which he chose to be so highly rated, he delivered to me, as the balance due from himself, not so much as the value of twenty minas, and united with his colleagues to plunder me of my whole substance, the capital as well as the income. For these reasons the jury, allowing interest on the whole amount, not at the rate at which estates are usually let, but at the lowest rate they could, found the loss which I had sustained by the fraud of the guardians to exceed thirty talents altogether; and therefore they assessed the damages against this man at ten talents.

THE ORATION AGAINST ONETOR-I.

THE ARGUMENT.

APHOBUS, after the judgment obtained against him by Demosthenes, made away with almost all of his movable goods, so as to leave little or nothing that could be seized in execution. Demosthenes, proceeding to take possession of a house and a piece of land, encounters the opposition of Onetor, the brother-in-law of Aphobus, who pretends that the land had been mortgaged to him, to secure a sum of money given with his sister as a marriage portion. This money (as he alleges) had become repayable, Aphobus and his wife having separated. The plaintiff, having made entry upon the land in assertion of his right, is turned off by Onetor, against whom he commences an action of ejectment.

The question to be determined in this action is, whether the title of Onetor is a good one. Demosthenes contends that the mortgage is colourable and fictitious; that the marriage portion had never been paid to Aphobus; that his wife had never really been divorced; and that, in fact, the whole scheme had been concocted between Aphobus and Onetor, in order to defeat his execution. To support this charge of fraud, he produces some direct testimony, but relies mainly upon the circumstances and probabilities of the case, and upon admissions and acts of his opponents, inconsistent with their present claim.

As to the law connected with this case, the reader is referred to Appendix IV.

I was most anxious, men of the jury, to avoid my dispute with Aphobus, and also this in which I am engaged with the defendant Onetor, his brother-in-law. I therefore made many fair proposals to both of them; but nothing like reasonable terms could I obtain from either. Indeed I have found this man far more troublesome and more deserving of punishment than the other. I pressed Aphobus (though in vain) to let our disputes be settled among friends, and not to try the experiment of a jury. But this man, when I offered to let him decide his own cause, to avoid the risk of a trial, treated me with the utmost contempt, refused to hold any conversation with me, and in a very insulting manner turned me off the land, which belonged to Aphobus when I recovered judgment against him. Now then, since he unites with his brother-inlaw to deprive me of my property, and has come into court relying on the influence of his friends, the only course left for me is, to seek redress at your hands. I am aware, men of the jury, that I have to contend against ingenious pleading and witnesses prepared to give false evidence. I think however, the justice of my cause will give me such advantage in argument over the defendant, that, if any of you had a good opinion of him before, you will learn from his conduct towards me, that he has all along been (unknown to you) the vilest and basest of mankind. I will show you, that he has not only never paid the marriage portion, for which he says the estate is mortgaged, but has laid a plot from the very beginning to defraud me; and also that the lady, on whose behalf he ejected me from this land, has not been divorced; and > that he is now screening Aphobus, and defending this action with a view to defeat my lawful claims. All this I shall prove by such clear and strong evidence, that you will at once see the justice and propriety of the action which I have brought against him. I shall commence with that part of the case, which will best give you an insight into the whole.

It was known, men of the jury, to many of the Athenians, and it did not escape the observation of the defendant, that my guardians were grossly neglecting their duty. The dis covery was indeed made very early; numerous meetings and discussions were held on the subject of my affairs, before the Archon as well as other persons. For the value of the property left me was notorious, and it was pretty evident, that

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