further, that he was not well off, and not so foolish as to pay thirty-nine minae instead of twenty-six hundred drachmae; and besides all this, that when, as he says, he paid the money to Lampis he summoned neither my slave nor my partner, who was at the time in Bosporus, as a witness. Again, Lampis himself is shown to have testified to me, before he was corrupted by Phormio, that he had not received the money.

Yet,The speaker is about to return to the argument that the special plea was inadmissible. He says, in effect, I have shown that Phormio is guilty. If he had been able to prove his case as clearly (i.e. in the suit as instituted) it would have been his best defence. He could not do so, and therefore had recourse to a special plea, arguing that my suit could not be brought into court. This, however, is inadmissible, and his course in entering it proves that he had no defence. if Phormio were thus to prove his case point by point, I do not see what better defence he could have made. But that the action is admissible the law itself solemnly declares, when it maintains that mercantile actions are those for contracts made at Athens or for the Athenian market, and not only those made at Athens, but all that are made for the purpose of a voyage to Athens.

Please take the laws.