<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0017.tlg011.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0017.tlg011.perseus-eng2" n="23"><p rend="align(center)"><label>Law</label></p><p rend="align(indent)">Does it appear to you that the law gives any liberty for a concerted arrangement? Or are not its provisions in an exactly contrary sense, since, even if a previous arrangement existed, it expressly ordains that each party shall bring an action for his own share, and prescribes a single voting-urn, when the two parties base their claims on the same ground, and makes this the system of adjudication? But my opponent, in spite of these legal provisions and the impossibility of a preconcerted arrangement, has had the impudence to invent this lie against all common sense. </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>