When I bade him prove this to the arbitrator, he did not do so, nor did he show that his fellow-guardians had paid me (for if he had, the arbitrator would not have given judgement against him); but he put in a piece of evidenceThe speaker would have the jury think that the bit of evidence in question is unworthy of further notice. of a sort regarding which he will try to find something to say.

If even now he still tries to assert that I am in possession of property, ask him who handed it over to me, and demand that he produce witnesses to prove each statement.

If he declares that it is my possession in this sense, that he reckons up what is in the hands of either of the trustees, it will be clear that he accounts for only a third part, and still does not prove that I have possession of it. For as I have convicted the defendant of having in his possession the large amount I have stated, I shall also prove that each of them has not less than he. This statement, therefore, will not help him. No; he must show that either he or his fellow-trustees really handed the money over to me. If he fails to prove this, why should you pay any attention to his challenge? He still does not prove that I have the money.

Being sorely at a loss to explain any of these matters before the arbitrator, and being convicted on each point, just as he is now before you, he had the audacity to make an outrageously false statement, to the effect that my father left me four talents buried in the ground, and that he had put my mother in charge of them. He made this statement in order that, if I should assume that he would repeat it here, I might waste my time in refuting it, when I ought to be preferring the rest of my charges against him; or if I should pass it over, not expecting him to repeat it, then he himself might now bring it up, in the hope that I, by seeming to be rich, might meet with less compassion from you.

Yet he who dared to make such a statement put in no evidence to prove it, but relied on his bare word, as though you would lightly give him credence. When one asks him upon what he has spent so much of my money, he says he has paid debts for me, and so represents me as poor; yet, when it pleases him, he makes me rich, as it seems, seeing that my father left such a sum of money in the house. It is easy to see, however, from many considerations that he is lying, and that there is no basis of fact in this story.

For if my father had no confidence in these men, it is plain that he would neither have entrusted to them the rest of his property, nor, if he had left this money in the way alleged, would he have told them of it. It would have been the height of madness to tell them of hidden treasure, when he was not going to make them trustees even of his visible property. But if he had confidence in them, he would not, I take it, have given into their hands the bulk of his property, and not have put them in control of this. Nor would he have entrusted this remainder to my mother to keep, and then have given her herself in marriage to this man who was one of the guardians. For it is not reasonable that he should seek to secure the money through my mother, and yet to put one of the men whom he distrusted in control both of her and of it.