How, then, could Archiades still have any sons, as the affidavit claims, when it is admitted that his adopted children returned to their original family and the last one left has died without issue? It follows, then, of necessity that the family is extinct. But when the family is extinct, there cannot be lawfully born sons still living. The fellow, then, has sworn that non-existent persons exist, and has written in the affidavit since he has children, alleging that he himself is one of them. But surely, when he says lawfully born and rightfully established according to the statute, he is quibbling and defying the laws. For the lawfully born exists, when it is born of the body; and the law bears testimony to this, when it says, Lawfully born are children of a woman whom her father or brother or grandfather has given in marriage. But rightfully established the lawgiver understood of adoptions, considering that when a man, being childless and master of his property, adopts a son, this action ought to be rightful. Well, our opponent says that Archiades had no son of the body, but in the affidavit he has sworn to the words since there are lawfully born children, thus making a sworn statement that is contrary to the truth. He admits that he is an adopted son, yet it is manifest that he was not adopted by the dead man himself; so how can you claim that this status is rightfully established according to the statute ? Because, he will say, he was registered as the son of Archiades. Yes, by the arbitrary act of these men, and that only the other day, when the suit for the estate had already been instituted. Surely it is not right for a man to regard as evidence his own illegal act.