Against Onetor, An Ejectment Suit I (20-23)

and they all answered severally that no witness was present, but that Aphobus got it from them by instalments, in such sums as he needed from time to time. And yet can any one of you believe this, that, when the dowry was a talent, Onetor and Timocrates put so large a sum into the hands of Aphobus without witnesses? Why, in paying him money, I will not say in this manner, but even in the presence of many witnesses, one would have taken every possible precaution[*] in order, if a dispute should arise, to be able readily to recover in your court what was due.

No man, in concluding a transaction of such importance, I will not say with such a man as Aphobus, but with anybody whatever, would have acted without a witness. This is the reason why we celebrate marriage-feasts and call together our closest friends and relations, because we are dealing with no light affair, but are entrusting to the care of others the lives of our sisters and daughters, for whom we seek the greatest possible security.

The presumption is, then, that the defendant made the settlement in the presence of the same witnesses before whom he had admitted the indebtedness and promised to pay the interest, if he really did pay the dowry to Aphobus. For, if he had acted in this way, he would have cleared himself of the whole matter; but by paying him when they were alone, he would have left those in whose presence he had made the agreement as witnesses that he was still a debtor.

As it was, they could not induce their friends, who were more honest men than themselves, to bear witness to the payment of the money, and they thought that, if they produced other witnesses, not related to them, you would not believe them. Again, if they said the payment had been made all at once, they knew that we should demand for examination by torture the slaves who had brought the money. These, if the payment had not been made, they would have refused to give up, and so they would have been convicted of fraud. But if they maintained that they had paid the money without witnesses in the manner alleged, they thought to escape detection.