Against Onetor, An Ejectment Suit I (28-31)

Nor are these the only proofs which make it easy to see that Aphobus continued to live with his wife and to possess the land up to the time when the suit was begun; it is plain also from the way in which he dealt with the land after judgement was given against him. For, as though the property had not been mortgaged, but was to belong to me according to the court’s decision, he made off with everything that could be carried away—the produce, and all the farm implements, except the storage-tanks.[*] What he could not take away he necessarily left behind, so that Onetor was now at liberty to lay claim merely to the bare land.

It is an outrage, though, that one of them should say that the land was mortgaged to him, while the mortgagor is to be seen cultivating it; that he should claim that his sister has left her husband, when he is shown to have refused to accept the test by torture regarding this very point; and that the one who is not living with his wife (as Onetor claims) should carry off all the produce and implements from the farm, while the man acting as guardian for the divorced woman, to secure whose portion he claims to have taken a mortgage on the land, plainly shows no anger at a single one of these acts, but takes everything quietly.

Is the whole thing not absolutely clear? Is it not confessedly a scheme to protect Aphobus? One certainly would so declare, if he duly considered each one of the facts.

Now, to prove that the defendant acknowledged that Aphobus farmed the land up to the time of the commencement of my action against him; that he refused the inquiry by torture as to his sister’s continuing to live with Aphobus; and that the farm was stripped after the court’s decision of everything save what was attached to the soil; take these depositions, and read them.

The Depositions

Although I have so many proofs ready to hand it is Onetor himself who most convincingly showed that the divorce was not a genuine one. He, who should have felt outraged, when, after paying the dowry, as he claims, he got back, not the money, but a farm whose title was under dispute,—this very man, as though he had had no quarrel, and were in no way being wronged, but as though he were on the most intimate terms possible with Aphobus, pleaded for the latter in the suit which I brought against him! As for myself, though I had done him no conceivable injury, he leagued with Aphobus, and sought by every means in his power to join in robbing me of my patrimony, while for Aphobus, whom he should have regarded as a stranger, if there is any truth in their present story, he sought to acquire possession of my property in addition to what he already had.