Apollodorus Against Callippus (25-27)

I would have you regard the following point also, men of the jury. Callippus was one of your citizens, a man able both to render a service and to do an injury, while Cephisiades was a resident alien and a person without influence; so one cannot suppose that my father would have taken the side of Cephisiades in defiance of justice rather than do what was right for the plaintiff.

Ah, but he will say perhaps, that my father got some private profit out of the money, and therefore took sides with Cephisiades rather than with the plaintiff. Then we are to believe, in the first place, that he wronged a man who would be able to do him injury to twice the amount of his gains, and secondly that my father in this instance was a base lover of gain, whereas in regard to special taxes and public services and gifts to the state he was not.

And did he, who never wronged a stranger, wrong Callippus? And did the plaintiff, as he alleges, tender an oath to my father as to one who was a worthy man and would tell no falsehood, and yet does he now speak of him as a base fellow, who erases records of deposits? And, if my father refused to take the oath, as the plaintiff claims, or to make payment, how could he have escaped immediate condemnation? Who can believe this, men of the jury? I certainly think no one can.