Why then does he settle this
 action, and not exact an agreement that no one shall make any further demand on him? Why
 does he lose the farm, and yet get no release from this action? Why does he act in so
 inexperienced a manner, as neither to bind Roscius by any stipulation, nor on the other
 hand to get a release from Fannius' action? This
 first argument, drawn both from the rules of civil rights, and from the customs
 prevailing with respect to such security, is a most important and powerful one, which I
 would press at greater length, if I had not other more undeniable and manifest proofs in
 the cause. 
 And that you may not say I have promised this on insufficient grounds, I will call
 you—you, I say, Fannius—from your seat as a witness against
 yourself.—What is your charge? That Roscius settled with Flavius on behalf of
 the partnership.—When? Four years ago.—What is my defence? That
 Roscius settled with Flavius for his share in the property. You yourself, three years
 ago, made a new engagement with Roscius.—What? Recite that stipulation
 plainly.—Attend, I beg you, O Piso —I am compelling Fannius against his will, and though he is
 shuffling off in every direction, to give evidence against himself. For what are the
 words of this new agreement? “Whatever I receive from Flavius, I undertake to
 pay one half of to Roscius.” These are your words, O Fannius. What can you get from Flavius, if Flavius owes you nothing?
 Moreover, why does he now enter into a mutual engagement about a sum which he has
 already exacted some time ago? But what can Flavius be going to give you, if he has
 already paid Roscius everything that he owed? Why is this new mutual arrangement
 interposed in so old an affair, in a matter so entirely settled, in a partnership which
 has been dissolved? Who is the drawer up of this agreement? who is the witness? who is
 the arbitrator? who? You, O Piso : for you
 begged Quintus Roscius to give Fannius fifteen thousand sesterces , for his care, for his labour, for having been his agent, and for
 having given security, on this condition, that, if he get anything from Flavius, he
 should give half of that sum to Roscius. Does not that agreement seem to show you with
 sufficient clearness that Roscius settled the affair on his own behalf alone? But perhaps this also may occur to you, that Fannius did in
 requital promise Roscius half of whatever he might get from Flavius, but that be got
 nothing at all. What has that to do with it? You ought to regard not the result of the
 demand, but the beginning of the mutual agreement. And it does not follow, if he did not
 choose to prosecute his demand, that he did not for all that, as far as it depended on
 him, show his opinion that Roscius had only settled his own claim, and not the claim of
 the partnership. What more? Suppose I make it evident, that after the whole settlement
 come to by Roscius, after this fresh mutual agreement entered into by Fannius, Fannius
 also recovered a hundred thousand sesterces from Flavius,
 for the loss of Panurgus? Will he after that still dare to sport with the character of
 that most excellent man, Quintus Roscius? I asked a little before—what was very material to the business, on what
 account Flavius, when (as they say) he was settling the whole claim, did neither take
 security from Roscius, nor obtain a release from all demands from Fannius? But now I ask
 how it was that, when he had settled the whole affair with Roscius, he paid also a
 hundred thousand sesterces to Fannius on his separate
 account? (a thing still more strange and incredible.) I should like to know, O Saturius,
 what answer are you preparing to give to this? Whether you are going to say that Fannius
 never got a hundred thousand sesterces from Flavius at all,
 or that he got them for some other claim, and on some other account?