<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" xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi001.perseus-eng2" subtype="translation"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="88" resp="perseus"><p>I asked what the reason was why the goods had not been sold, since they had been taken
            possession of according to the edict. Secondly, I asked this also, on what account not
            one of so many creditors either did the same thing then, why not one speaks against him
            now, but why they are all striving for Publius Quinctius? Especially when in such a
            trial the testimonies of creditors are thought exceedingly material. After that, I
            employed the testimony of the adversary, who lately entered as his partner the man who,
            according to the language of his present claim, <note anchored="true"><foreign xml:lang="la">Intentio</foreign> was the technical legal term for the claim made by the
              plaintiff.</note> he demonstrates was at that time not even in the number of living
            men. Then I mentioned that incredible rapidity, or rather audacity of his. I showed that
            it was inevitable, either that seven hundred miles had been run over in two days, or
            that Sextus Naevius had sent men to take possession many days before he demanded leave
            so to seize his goods.</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="89" resp="perseus"><p>After that I recited the
            edict, which expressly forbade the owner to be driven off his by which it was plain that
            Naevius had not taken possession according to the edict, as he confessed that Quinctius
            had been driven off his farm by force. But I thoroughly proved that the goods had
            actually not been taken possession of, because such a seizure of goods is looked at not
            as to part but with respect to everything which can be seized or taken possession of. I
            said that he had a house at <placeName key="perseus,Rome">Rome</placeName> which that
            fellow never even made an attempt on; that he had many slaves, of which he neither took
            possession of any, and did not even touch any; that there was one whom he attempted to
            touch; that he was forbidden to, and that he remained quiet.</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="90" resp="perseus"><p>You know also that Sextus Naevius never came on to the private farms
            of Quinctius even in <placeName key="tgn,1000070">Gaul</placeName>. Lastly I proved that
            the private servants of Quinctius were not all driven away from that very estate which
            he took possession of, having expelled his partner by force. From which, and from all
            the other sayings, and actions, and thoughts of Sextus Naevius, any one can understand
            that that fellow did nothing else, and is now doing nothing, but endeavouring by
            violence, by injustice, and by unfair means at this trial, to make the whole farm his
            own which belongs to both partners in common.</p></div><milestone n="30" unit="chapter" resp="yonge"/><milestone unit="Para"/><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="91" resp="perseus"><p>Now that I have summed up the whole cause the affair itself and the magnitude of the
            danger, O Caius Aquillius, seem to make it necessary for Publius Quinctius to solicit
            and entreat you and your colleagues, by his old age and his desolate condition, merely
            to follow the dictates or your own nature and goodness; so that as the truth is on his
            side, his necessitous state may move you to pity rather than the influence of the other
            party to cruelty.</p></div></div></body></text></TEI>