Against Onetor, An Ejectment Suit I (22-24)

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.

For this reason they were driven through stress of necessity to make up this false story. By such tricks and pieces of villainy, while hoping themselves to pass for simple folk, they think they will easily deceive you; whereas in the slightest matter affecting their interest they acted, not with simplicity, but with every possible precaution.

Take now the depositions of the persons in whose presence they gave their answers, and read them to the jury.

The Depositions