On the Estate of Dicaeogenes (15-17)

Two wills were produced, one made long ago, the other much more recent. Under the old will, which Proxenus, the father of Dicaeogenes (III.) here, produced, the latter was to be heir by adoption to one-third of our uncle's estate; according to the will which Dicaeogenes (III.) himself produced, he was to be heir to the whole estate. Of these two wills Dicaeogenes (III.) persuaded the judges that the one, namely that produced by Proxenus, was not genuine; those who bore witness that the other, namely that which Dicaeogenes (III.) produced, was our uncle's genuine will, were convicted of perjury.

Both wills being thus invalidated and it being admitted that no other will existed, no one had any claim to the estate under testamentary disposition, but it could be claimed on grounds of affinity by the sisters of the deceased Dicaeogenes (II.), among whom were our mothers.[*] We therefore resolved to claim the estate on grounds of affinity, and we each claimed our share. When we were on the point of making our affidavit,[*] Leochares here put in a protestation that the estate was not adjudicable to us.[*]

We then indicted Leochares, with the result that the suit claiming the estate was struck off the list, and the action for perjury came on. In court, after we had brought forward all the arguments which we are presenting on the present occasion, and Leochares had made a lengthy defence, the judges decided that Leochares had committed perjury. When this result became evident after the votes had been taken out of the urns, I do not think I need dwell upon the appeals which Leochares made to the judges and to us or the penalties which we were entitled to exact on that occasion; but I will tell you the compromise to which we came.