Witnesses Such is the treatment, gentlemen, which we have received from Dicaeogenes (III.). Leochares, who became his surety and is the cause of all our troubles, says that he never undertook to act as surety to the extent stated in the evidence against him, on the ground that it is not implied in the document drawn up before the tribunal. We, gentlemen, being hurried at the time in court, wrote down some of the points and obtained witnesses in support of others; but our opponents affirm the validity of those parts of the agreement then made which are to their own advantage, even if they are not in writing, while they deny the validity of what is contrary to their interests unless it exists in writing. For myself, gentlemen, I am not surprised that they repudiate their verbal agreements, for they are unwilling to execute the written conditions. We will furnish another proof of our veracity. Dicaeogenes (II.) gave his sister If the manuscript reading is retained, the reference must be to the giving in marriage of one of his sisters by Dicaeogenes II., since a sister of Dicaeogenes III. would have no claim to a share in the estate. The sister in question must, therefore, be the widow or divorced wife of Democles ( Isaeus 5.5-9 τὴν Δημοκέος γενεμένην γυναῖκα ). in marriage to Protarchides of Potamos with a dowry of forty minae, but instead of paying the dowry to her in cash he made over to Protarchides the house which he possessed in the Cerameicus. Now this woman, the wife of Protarchides, has a right to just the same share of the estate as my mother. Now when Dicaeogenes (III.) renounced the two-thirds of the estate in favor of the women, Leochares suggested that Protarchides should hand over to him the building which he possessed in lieu of the dowry, on the ground that he was surety, and receive from him on his wife's behalf the share of the estate which accrued to her. If the interpretation suggested in the last note is correct, the meaning here can only be that the dowry of the sister of Dicaeogenes II., having originally come from him, had to return into hotchpotch before his estate could be re-divided. He took over the building, but never paid over the share of the estate. And of these facts I will now produce Protarchides as witness. Witness Regarding the repairs to the bath-house and the cost of building, Dicaeogenes (III.) has declared on a former occasion, and will now perhaps again declare, that we agreed to re-imburse him his expenses but failed to do so, and that he therefore cannot get rid of the creditors and restore what he ought to us. Now, gentlemen, we in court, when we obliged him to renounce this property, let him off the payment of the revenue he had received from it in consideration of the public services which he had performed Apparently during the period when Dicaeogenes III. held the whole estate, his fortune was such that he was obliged to undertake public burdens to which he otherwise would not have been liable. and the expenses which he had incurred on the buildings, in accordance with the decision of the judges and subsequently, under no compulsion but of our own free will, in consideration of the repairs which he had carried out, gave him as a special gift, in addition to his third share of the estate, the town-house which he sold to Philonicus for 5000 drachmae.