<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0027.tlg001.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="part" n="Proof"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0027.tlg001.perseus-eng2" n="74"><p rend="align(indent)">Such was one form of disfranchisement. According to a second, delinquents lost all personal rights, but retained possession of their property. This class included all persons convicted of theft or of accepting bribes—it was laid down that both they and their descendants should lose their personal rights. Similarly, all who deserted on the field of battle, who were found guilty of evasion of military service, of cowardice, or of withholding a ship from action,<note resp="Loeb" anchored="true">When Trierarchs.</note> all who threw away their shields, or were thrice convicted of giving perjured evidence or of falsely endorsing a summons,<note resp="Loeb" anchored="true">Whenever a plaintiff had to serve a summons in person, the law required that he should do so in the presence of witnesses. The names of these witnesses were entered on the writ. If the plaintiff secured the witnesses’ names without serving the summons and so won the case by default, the defendant had the right to bring a <foreign xml:lang="grc">γραφὴ ψευδοκλητείας</foreign> against the witnesses ( <foreign xml:lang="grc">κλητῆρες</foreign>) concerned.</note> or who were found guilty of maltreating their parents, were deprived of their personal rights, while retaining possession of their property. </p></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>