As for Nicodemus's evidence it is not difficult to decide from the actual text of the laws that he has obviously committed perjury. For seeing that, if a man gives with a woman a sum not duly assessed in a contract, and if the wife leaves her husband or the hushand puts away his wife, the man who gave the money cannot, as far as the law is concerned, demand back what he gave but did not assess in a contract—the defendant when he states that he gave his sister in marriage without any contract regarding a dowry, is obviously proved to be making an impudent assertion.

For what was likely to be the good to him of the marriage, if the husband could dismiss the wife whenever he wished? And this he certainly could do, if he had made no stipulation that he should receive a dowry with her. Would Nicodemus have married his sister to our uncle on these terms, and this, though he knew all the time that in the past she had produced no offspring, and though the dowry, if it had been assessed in a contract, was coming to him, if anything happened to her before she bore any children?

Does any one of you really think that Nicodemus is so disinterested in money matters that he would neglect any of these considerations? For my part, I do not think it possible. Further, would our uncle have thought of marrying the sister of a man, who, when he was accused of usurping the rights of citizenship by a member of the ward to which he claimed to belong, obtained those rights by a majority of only four votes? And to prove the truth of what I say, read the deposition.

The defendant then has given evidence that he gave his sister in marriage to our uncle without a dowry in spite of the fact that such a dowry was to come to him if anything happened to the woman before she had borne any children. Now take and read these laws to the judges.

Do you think that Nicodemus is so disinterested in money matters, that, if the fact which he alleges were true, he would not have provided for his own interests with scrupulous care? By heaven, I am sure he would have done so; for even those who give their womenkind to others as mistresses make stipulations in advance as to the benefits which such women are to enjoy. And was Nicodemus, when, according to his own account, he was going to give his sister in marriage, content with simply securing the requirements of a legal marriagei.e., without insisting on stipulations regarding a dowry which might eventually benefit him.—a man who shows himself only too anxious to be dishonest for a paltry sum which he hopes to receive for speaking in court?i.e., as a reward for his false evidence.