Trapeziticus (53-55)

Although, men of the jury, my claims to justice are so many, I think that the strongest proof that Pasion defrauded me of my money is this—that he refused to surrender for torture the slave who knew about the deposit. And yet, in respect to contracts where banks are concerned, what stronger proof could there be than this? For witnesses certainly we do not use in contracts with banks.[*]

I see that in private and public causes you judge that nothing is more deserving of belief, or truer, than testimony given under torture, and that while you think it possible to suborn witnesses even for acts which never occurred at all, yet that testimony under torture clearly shows which party is telling the truth.[*] Pasion, being aware of this, wished that in this affair you should judge by conjecture rather than know the exact truth. For he certainly would not be able to say that he was likely to be at a disadvantage if torture should be used and that for this reason the surrender of his slave could not reasonably be expected of him.

For you all know that if Cittus spoke against his master, he would likely suffer for the remainder of his life in the most cruel manner at the hands of his master, but that if he held firm in his denials, he would be free and have a share of my money which his master had taken. In spite of the fact that he was to have so great an advantage Pasion, conscious of his guilty deeds, submitted to stand suit and to rest under the other charges, all to prevent any testimony under torture being given in this case!